The Religion forum

Syne said:
Then where, Bells, is any mention of "religion-bashing" in that thread? Here is a hint, there is one that does. Go find it.
Click to expand...
I asked you if that was a possible cause for you closing the thread..

"Was it bashing or critiquing religion?"..

You know, asking you if that was why you closed the thread, if you felt it was religion bashing?

If it is not that, why was it closed? Hence why I suggested you posted the reason for closure. The people reading it and participating in it were not given a reason as to why you felt it deserved to be closed.
 
Bells said:
If it is not that, why was it closed? Hence why I suggested you posted the reason for closure. The people reading it and participating in it were not given a reason as to why you felt it deserved to be closed.
Click to expand...
wait a minute, there are numerous threads all across the board that are closed without any explanation at all.
 
leopold said:
wait a minute, there are numerous threads all across the board that are closed without any explanation at all.
Click to expand...
Yes. And it is a problem, we've all done it. However many do not post a reason in the thread itself but post it in the Action Notes threads in each subsequent forums.

Sometimes the reasons for closure are so obvious that no reason really needs to be listed. Other times it can be a tad confusing, like it appears to be the case for this instance, which is why I suggested he just post a quick reason as to why he felt it needed to be closed, so that posters do not repeat the same issue again.
 
Bells, did you click on the last link posted by GIA? That one should be obvious.
 
Baldeee said:
And the "moderator" strikes again: another thread closed ("Does being under supernatural control exonerate Eve of any sin?") with naff-all attempt to merely control/punish the offenders but instead a wholesale closure of the thread.
Click to expand...


The devil makes him do it.
 
Stryder said:
When the current Sciforums owners took over, we had a discussion about what we (at the time the moderators were polled) wanted for the sites direction since the owners didn't really want to make any huge changes.

We look at what would happen if we headed towards a pure science site, this would of required "Quality Control" on thread creation (Having an Editor overview articles), it would of likely required more information from moderators and posters alike (resumes, qualifications etc) and discussions would be streamlined to be more in-tune with true science than the current layperson discussions we have now.
(A encyclopaedia was even added just in case a more professional direction was turned, it would of given the ability to create articles that sciforum's members collaborated on.)

It was assumed that if the site evolved into a more specialised academic model that it wouldn't appeal to such a large audience and that traffic in the long run would dwindle, it was also proven by the members at the time that they preferred a more "casual" approach to scientific discussion. This is because not everyone has an alphabet of academic credence after their name, this forum was populated by people that might work in some positions of science (researchers, assistants and the like), writers and people that have interests in certain topical discussions. Sometimes they would "let their hair down" and we'd have people that clowned about (which isn't something that would have been tolerated on a stringent science site).

So we decided that the site should be a popular science site, while Science is what it's defined for, it meant we'd create more room and leeway for things that aren't so scientific, like pursuits of philosophy, history, politics, religion etc. (Things that would fall more into Humanities or "soft sciences") along with things that were purely cultural, albeit they could be a subset of psychology (conspiracies, pseudoscience, Scifi etc)

That's why there is a Religion subforum, it was also handy because if anyone claimed something religions in regards to any subjects, it had a subforum to be moved to because of it's agenda driven reasoning, which meant it was given a place rather than just being dumped in the Cesspool.

The religion subforum didn't really get moderated initially because most of us aren't interested in religion in the slightest. The problem is however having a religion subforum brings out two types of people, those that want to spread the word of whatever god they believe in and those that want to just state how much 'cacca' religion is. Both are extremists in their own way and neither are really there for actual discussion, just promotion of their own egocentric position.

The religion subforum should stay just for trying to keep the site tidy. (However I do question whether posters should be rewarded a post count for posting there.)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the background. I appreciate that you've take the time to explain the history.

I do have a problem with this though:

"things that aren't so scientific, like pursuits of philosophy, history, politics, religion etc."

Everything on that list , if not scientific, is at least subject to rational discussion, except religion: that is the problem.


I have a suggestion: every post on the religion forum should be rewarded by the decrement of the post count (and that includes me). It would soon die, as it should.
 
Syne said:
Bells, did you click on the last link posted by GIA? That one should be obvious.
Click to expand...
Yes.

And as I said, if you felt it was too offensive, just remove the link with a mod note to not post things like that. However, if you listen to the whole thing, it's only the chorus that could be deemed offensive because it says penis and balls. The rest of the song is actually really pertinent to the role religion is currently playing in American politics. In other words, the song is about the fact that religion is no longer in the private domain but has instead invaded the political and public domain and laws are being made to comply with the wants and demands of the extreme religious rights. Which is offensive in and of itself. The song also discusses the hypocrisy of the religious right - such as their extreme pro-life stance, but also the fact that these very people support the death penalty, for example.

The chorus, while applying the words in a fairly in your face manner, is a reminder that religion should not intrude into the private lives of people who do not wish to practice said religion and do not practice said religion.

Thank you for finally clearing it up that you closed the thread because of the contents of that youtube video.
 
Bells said:
Yes.

And as I said, if you felt it was too offensive, just remove the link with a mod note to not post things like that.
Click to expand...

I have been expressly told that editing people's posts is considered very obtrusive and that closing a thread is preferred. Or does that only count when it is one of your friends?
 
Syne said:
I have been expressly told that editing people's posts is considered very obtrusive and that closing a thread is preferred. Or does that only count when it is one of your friends?
Click to expand...
I beg your pardon?

Which "friends" are you suggesting I applied this to? Please provide a link.

The rules we all go by is simple, if an offensive link or image needs to be removed (such as pornographic link), then you clearly have to state what you removed and why in a separate post. While we do not do this on a regular basis, if a link is pornographic, for example, then yes, removing it is within the boundaries of the rules. If it is just rude, a simple warning in the thread to not post such materials in the future works just as well and if it keeps happening, then warnings to the individual in question becomes warranted.
 
Sorcerer said:
I do have a problem with this though:

"things that aren't so scientific, like pursuits of philosophy, history, politics, religion etc."

Everything on that list , if not scientific, is at least subject to rational discussion, except religion: that is the problem.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you need to educate yourself.

Here's the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on the Philosophy of Religion.

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a good historical overview of Natural Theology.

And here's the SEP's article on the extraordinary subject of Mind in Indian Buddhism.

Many universities offer programs in the study of religion. Stanford University, not far from my home, has an active Religious Studies doctoral program. The University of California at Berkeley, across the bay, offers an interdisciplinary Ph.D program in Buddhist Studies. Berkeley also cooperates closely with the adjacent Graduate Theological Union and offers some joint programs with the GTU, I believe.

Entire academic libraries are filled with scholarly works on the history, philosophy, phenomenonology, psychology, sociology, descriptive studies, literary and textual studies, studies of religious art and comparative studies of religion in general and individual religions in particular.
 
Syne said:
I have been expressly told that editing people's posts is considered very obtrusive and that closing a thread is preferred. Or does that only count when it is one of your friends?
Click to expand...
If there were such a thing as a "Moderator's Sensitivity Class" you would fail miserably Syne, at least in my humble opinion. OTOH, your style would ace the Pretentious course, with honors. Strictly a subjective take, of course. Subject to all the usual disclaimers...
 
Yazata said:
Entire academic libraries are filled with scholarly works on the history, philosophy, phenomenonology, psychology, sociology, descriptive studies, literary and textual studies, studies of religious art and comparative studies of religion in general and individual religions in particular.
Click to expand...
True, but the scientific content regarding the actual existence of a God or gods is extremely limited. With good reason, the true scientist's position can be easily summarized: "There is not now, nor has there ever been, any objective evidence to support the existence of Sky Fairies. Or unicorns..."
 
Yazata said:
Perhaps you need to educate yourself.

Here's the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on the Philosophy of Religion.

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a good historical overview of Natural Theology.

And here's the SEP's article on the extraordinary subject of Mind in Indian Buddhism.

Many universities offer programs in the study of religion. Stanford University, not far from my home, has an active Religious Studies doctoral program. The University of California at Berkeley, across the bay, offers an interdisciplinary Ph.D program in Buddhist Studies. Berkeley also cooperates closely with the adjacent Graduate Theological Union and offers some joint programs with the GTU, I believe.

Entire academic libraries are filled with scholarly works on the history, philosophy, phenomenonology, psychology, sociology, descriptive studies, literary and textual studies, studies of religious art and comparative studies of religion in general and individual religions in particular.
Click to expand...

You clearly didn't read my post. I specifically exempted philosophy, history, politics, so your first 2 examples are irrelevant. The third sounds semi-scientific, at least from the title - I'm not going to waste my time reading it.

I don't have any problem with universities offering courses to study religion, after all it's had significant effects on the world, most of them bad. If we could find a vaccine for it we could get rid of it, and that is no doubt what they hope to discover.

What on earth is this to do with having a rational discussion about religion:

"Entire academic libraries are filled with scholarly works on the history, philosophy, phenomenonology, psychology, sociology, descriptive studies, literary and textual studies, studies of religious art and comparative studies of religion in general and individual religions in particular."

Let's start a rational discussion about religion:

God exists.

Prove it.

Can't.

Goodnight.
 
Let's look at this from a different perspective.

You're brought up in an agnostic society, with agnostic parents. Someone hands a bible or the koran when you're 18 and able to think properly. You read the thing, and what would you think?

Bible: clearly untrue, certainly genesis and probably exodus, and there's no proof for any of it: in the garbage, then, if you are of sound mind.

Koran: the main prophet marries a 9 yro girl, and the benefits you get from paradise are not just 72 virgins but also 28 little boys: in the garbage.

If you hadn't had the stuff pumped into your mind when you were too young to think, you'd dismiss it out of hand. That's why it doesn't belong here.
 
Randwolf said:
With good reason, the true scientist's position can be easily summarized: "There is not now, nor has there ever been, any objective evidence to support the existence of Sky Fairies. Or unicorns..."
Click to expand...
i believe the same can be said of the alternative evolution.
science has been completely unable to prove inanimate matter becomes alive and that an organism can change into another organism.
countless thousands of fruitflies have given their lives in the pursuit.
 
Magical Realist said:
Everytime you eat a cheeseburger inanimate matter becomes alive.
Click to expand...

You... really don't understand the human body very well, do you? The organic matter int he cheeseburger does NOT reanimate... it is broken down to its component parts and consumed via chemical reactions. Unless of course you wish to claim that metal rusting is also alive because that's a chemical reaction as well...


Magical Realist said:
Where does science claim an organism can change into another organism?
Click to expand...

Well... there are species of fish and seahorse that can change gender in order to facilitate reproduction...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top