Should we change the forum's name to Religous Forums ?

[Robittybob1]

Ok. lets introduce some new rules then.

_Each time the word God is written a minus in rep. When its GOD all in caps that gives you minus three.

_Each time the word Truth is written, a minus in rep.

-When the words GOD & Thruth are in the same sentence, the thread goes to the Trash Can.

 

note. I am not really serious.

Thank GOD for that!

[Acme]

...

So what % religion is acceptable for this site?

0

You can censor your own choice of forums to view in the New Content page. Go down the left-hand column of the New Content page then select Filter By Forum > Click on the forums you want to view in New Content > Click Save.

But that's only good for members and only if they are logged in. Guests see what's really going on & this idea of members being expected/encouraged to ignore open cesspools is ludicrous. I see too much favoring how things are said and too little favoring the factual nature of what is said as it is and the religio claptrap only serves to kick that up a notch or three. Bunch of damn nonsense IMHO.

[MigL]

I don't think you got my meaning Phi.

 

The gruff, older gentleman, who 'doesn't suffer fools' would be a reference to Ophiolite.

He would have told this 'new member', rightly or wrongly, but most certainly accurately, that he was 'ignorant of the facts'.

He always called a spade, 'a spade', and maybe he wasn't well liked for this, but he was certainly respected.

 

If, on the other hand, I misunderstood your post, please PM me.

Sorry for the OT comments.

Edited January 6, 2015 by MigL

[CharonY]

You know what we need ?

Some gruff, opinionated, older guy, who 'doesn't suffer fools', to call this new member 'ignorant of the facts'.

Anyone know someone like that ?

 

I would object to call Ophiolite opinionated. The common definition is :"unduly adhering to one's own opinion or to preconceived notions" and I found him to be very open to new concepts, provided they are evidence-driven. He does not suffer opinionated fools, though.

 

And sorry for being off-topic.

Edited January 6, 2015 by CharonY

[MonDie]

 

It's not its placement that's under fire, it's the fact that its threads show up on the front page and make it look, occasionally, like that's all we talk about. In these instances, it wouldn't matter if the percentage was 99% science, if the front page happens to show 10 religion topics out of 20 total, it looks like we're talking about God half the time.

 

But hiding it from the view of transient visitors, whether as a subforum of General Philosophy, Speculations, or Politics, might stop it from attracting more new religiously-oriented users, which would in turn dampen the religious talk.

Personally, I think the phenomenon of religion is interesting, but such discussions could go in Psychology.

[Phi for All]

I don't think you got my meaning Phi.

 

The gruff, older gentleman, who 'doesn't suffer fools' would be a reference to Ophiolite.

He would have told this 'new member', rightly or wrongly, but most certainly accurately, that he was 'ignorant of the facts'.

He always called a spade, 'a spade', and maybe he wasn't well liked for this, but he was certainly respected.

 

I got your meaning.

 

And my objection stands. Using the phrase "doesn't suffer fools gladly" automatically attempts to place one as an arbiter of what is and isn't foolish. I have no problem with telling someone who is ignorant of the facts that they are ignorant of the facts. I have a BIG problem with someone claiming, "I always call a spade a spade", because again, you're automatically claiming that when you call something a spade, it definitely, unequivocally, absolutely IS a spade, and also deserves to be called out in exactly the manner you just did. You never earned that right.

 

Where else can you undeservedly gain that kind of credibility with a simple claim? If I told you I used an algorithm to accurately detect foolishness in someone's post, you'd probably be pretty skeptical. But if I just say, "I don't suffer fools gladly", it's very likely it will just be accepted and the judgment will stand. It's a wolf-phrase in sheep's-phrase clothing that means a LOT more than you think it does.

 

 

But hiding it from the view of transient visitors, whether as a subforum of General Philosophy, Speculations, or Politics, might stop it from attracting more new religiously-oriented users, which would in turn dampen the religious talk.

Personally, I think the phenomenon of religion is interesting, but such discussions could go in Psychology.

 

We used to have a 50 post requirement for posting in Religion, then it was reduced to 30, then abandoned altogether, iirc. I would propose either putting the 50 post requirement back, or just lock all the sections you guys object to so strongly.

 

I don't have a problem with not having a religion section. I don't like the idea that we'd close it because some people think it's foolish.

 

I think politics is different. It may be more opinion-oriented than our normal topics, but at least it can be addressed scientifically, and it tends to have more of an impact on science.

[elfmotat]

We used to have a 50 post requirement for posting in Religion, then it was reduced to 30, then abandoned altogether, iirc. I would propose either putting the 50 post requirement back, or just lock all the sections you guys object to so strongly.

The problem with post quotas is that it incentivizes new users to make lots of useless posts in other sections to get access quicker.

[Phi for All]

The problem with post quotas is that it incentivizes new users to make lots of useless posts in other sections to get access quicker.

 

That's why 50 was better than 30, it gave us time to check up and see if someone is simply padding the count or not. I think the incentivizing aspect diminishes somewhat when the requirement is higher, too.

 

The Report function is better these days, too, and the membership has been very good about reporting spam and other rotten posts. I think we all could spot most of the newcomers who are trying to cut corners to reach 50.

[iNow]

I recall we just wound up granting exceptions to anybody and everybody who requested early admittance so the threshold became little more than moot and needlessly irritating anyway.

[MonDie]

Perhaps one function is the opportunity to engage a science-oriented audience on religious matters, but in practice the secular atheists seem over-represented since their approach is more dialectical and investigative.

[elfmotat]

 

That's why 50 was better than 30, it gave us time to check up and see if someone is simply padding the count or not. I think the incentivizing aspect diminishes somewhat when the requirement is higher, too.

 

The Report function is better these days, too, and the membership has been very good about reporting spam and other rotten posts. I think we all could spot most of the newcomers who are trying to cut corners to reach 50.

 

Good point. It's hard to sneak 50 useless posts past everyone.

 

I recall we just wound up granting exceptions to anybody and everybody who requested early admittance so the threshold became little more than moot and needlessly irritating anyway.

 

That seems like a simple problem to fix though: no exceptions. Everyone needs to stick around until the quota is met. That would ensure two things: 1) that members aren't signing up only to start religious debates, and 2) that they actually have some knowledge or curiosity about science, which is, after all, the theme of the website.

[Phi for All]

The non-science sections, Religion, Politics, the Lounge, these were all supposed to be diversions so people could talk about other things, always within the parameters of reason and critical thinking. I honestly don't know why people come here with a religion-only agenda when there are many websites that would treat them with a whole lot more acceptance than we generally do.

 

Part of me would like to believe they want to be convinced about science's legitimacy. This is the part that wants to keep the Religion sub-section. I mean, encouraging people who are on a productive learning path is fantastic, but don't we also need to discourage those who've chosen poorly?

[iNow]

The site seems to work fine as is, IMO. Those who are problematic either leave on their own relatively quickly or get tossed. It's much the same way with climate change denial and anti-vaxxers and people who won't accept relativity or plate tectonics...

 

Those who come here only to talk about these religious topics or evolution at least tend to learn something in the process. Not everyone can contribute 30 to 50 posts on other subjects, but that doesn't mean they won't help generate interesting dialog and educational opportunity. Those who are interested in these topics (like me) tend to enjoy being able to discuss them and hear from other rational, intelligent, and critically thinking people.

 

I vote to keep things as is. No change. It would be a shame to completely change the operations and rules of the site because some 10th grader happened to pop in last week and flood the forum with more activity than usual. It's not broken IMO. It's just more active right now than we're used to seeing it.

[StringJunky]

The site seems to work fine as is, IMO. Those who are problematic either leave on their own relatively quickly or get tossed. It's much the same way with climate change denial and anti-vaxxers and people who won't accept relativity or plate tectonics...

 

Those who come here only to talk about these religious topics or evolution at least tend to learn something in the process. Not everyone can contribute 30 to 50 posts on other subjects, but that doesn't mean they won't help generate interesting dialog and educational opportunity. Those who are interested in these topics (like me) tend to enjoy being able to discuss them and hear from other rational, intelligent, and critically thinking people.

 

I vote to keep things as is. No change. It would be a shame to completely change the operations and rules of the site because some 10th grader happened to pop in last week and flood the forum with more activity than usual. It's not broken IMO. It's just more active right now than we're used to seeing it.

A statistical blip.

[Robittybob1]

The site seems to work fine as is, IMO. Those who are problematic either leave on their own relatively quickly or get tossed. It's much the same way with climate change denial and anti-vaxxers and people who won't accept relativity or plate tectonics...

 

Those who come here only to talk about these religious topics or evolution at least tend to learn something in the process. Not everyone can contribute 30 to 50 posts on other subjects, but that doesn't mean they won't help generate interesting dialog and educational opportunity. Those who are interested in these topics (like me) tend to enjoy being able to discuss them and hear from other rational, intelligent, and critically thinking people.

 

I vote to keep things as is. No change. It would be a shame to completely change the operations and rules of the site because some 10th grader happened to pop in last week and flood the forum with more activity than usual. It's not broken IMO. It's just more active right now than we're used to seeing it.

I think the moderators here are very fair.

[imatfaal]

Good point. It's hard to sneak 50 useless posts past everyone...

 

I don't know about that - I have managed over four thousand without anyone noticing yet ...

[MigL]

4001 now !

 

Keep it up.

Considering an idea or someone 'foolish' is an opinion Phi, everyone does it, including you.

Sometimes it is a shared or common opinion as is often demonstrated on this forum.

Would it have been more appropriate to have written ' who doesn't suffer what I also consider to be fools, gladly' ?

 

And I meant 'opinionated' in that he had an opinion on everything, not an aversion to new viewpoints.

 

It seems to me that we already have rules in place for dealing with religious 'preaching'.

Everything that is presented, as fact or opinion, on this forum needs to be backed with the relevant thinking behind it or source.

The bible cannot be used as the source, because it has been scientifically demonstrated to be mostly fiction or allegory at best.

 

A slightly tighter application of existing forum rules, along with totally ignoring the OP once deemed in violation of said rules, would quickly cut down the never-ending preaching that sometimes happens.

 

Some of the other ideas, like the 'thinking' which gives rise and supports religious beliefs are to me, and quite a few others, it seems, quite interesting, and I would hate for those babies to be 'thrown out with the bathwater'.

( sorry Phi, I happen to like these little sayings, that's all they really are, I' not trying to stifle discussion )

[Phi for All]

Considering an idea or someone 'foolish' is an opinion Phi, everyone does it, including you.

Sometimes it is a shared or common opinion as is often demonstrated on this forum.

Would it have been more appropriate to have written ' who doesn't suffer what I also consider to be fools, gladly' ?

These phrases are nothing more than Begging the Question fallacies, imo. To tell someone you don't suffer fools gladly, or that you call a spade a spade, assumes automatically that your judgment is true.

 

I'm just calling them as I see them, which seems to mean I have every right to do so, and also assumes I'm being honest in my observations.

 

( sorry Phi, I happen to like these little sayings, that's all they really are, I' not trying to stifle discussion )

Put the straw down! I was very specific which "little sayings" I objected to, and why. And I don't think I ever accused you of stifling the discussion, either. Are you trying to make me suffer? Should I do it gladly?

[ydoaPs]

Is the science here withering away, this morning's screenshot says it all.

 

rename.jpg

It says you're a horrible human being for using IE.

[studiot]

IEeeeeeee

 

Who is he?

[Torben]

In the Dutch 'version' of this forum they've removed religion and politics as categories altogether after it had gotten out of hand. They also moved all the non-exact sciences to a subdomain. Now they're very strict about posts having a purely scientific background, which is nice on one hand, but a little monotonous as well.

[imatfaal]

In the Dutch 'version' of this forum they've removed religion and politics as categories altogether after it had gotten out of hand. They also moved all the non-exact sciences to a subdomain. Now they're very strict about posts having a purely scientific background, which is nice on one hand, but a little monotonous as well.

 

 

I cannot help imagine how the argument over what was a non-exact science was would end... there would be tears before bedtime

 

---

Merged post follows:

hmm

 

The above is missing its left hand side of course

 

 

With sincere apologies to Randall Munroe

[studiot]

I'm glad everyone's enjoying my thread.

 

 

But please remember that I did not suggest a total ban on non-science, just commented on the relative proportions.

 

[StringJunky]

I'm glad everyone's enjoying my thread.

 

 

But please remember that I did not suggest a total ban on non-science, just commented on the relative proportions.

 

I do think sometimes religion appears disproportionately sometimes but in the long run it ebbs and flows.

[MonDie]

I do think sometimes religion appears disproportionately sometimes but in the long run it ebbs and flows.

 

Got any explanatory variables in mind?