Philosophy & Religion

[iNow]

Ludicrous. You'd have no problem had I said the same to a psuedo-scientific concept presented here. Some "theory" with no predictions and no models and just a bunch of hand waving.

 

Either enforce your policy sooner or change it. Clearly your membership wishes to engage in such conversation... such argument... such battles. Too bad that special protection is afforded those who don't have the wherewithal to defend themselves.

 

If we were attacking a troll or farsight, you'd be good with it. Think about that.

[doG]

I'm beginning to believe it's just the topic. On the subject of religion, it doesn't seem to matter what the stance is, too many people are pre-convinced they're right.

 

It's a topic that's only fit for some people but there are some people that can discuss it. By the time the infraction system weeds out those that can't you'll only have those that can discuss it left in the group.

[Mr Skeptic]

Immaturity could easily be banned from the P&R forum. That's the point: that we can take a new approach to moderation where we just silence the irritating and immature people.

 

What about a system like Slashdot? They allow people a limited amount of points to add or subtract karma from specific posts. The system allows you to select the amount of karma a post must have to be visible by default, and posters can accumulate sufficient karma to add or subtract a point from their posts automatically.

 

However, that system would drastically change the beautiful atmosphere that is at SFN (well, as compared to many other forums I have been at). Perhaps a system where posts in the Religion forum are automatically hidden unless the user has been shown to be mature there. That would quiet people without silencing them completely.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

We can:

• Run a reputation system that boots people out of P&R if their reputation is too low.
  
• Ban people from P&R.
  
• Have restricted membership of P&R (staff chooses who can talk).
  
• Have a free-for-all.
  

 

Those are the only easy ways.

[Mr Skeptic]

I'm beginning to believe it's just the topic. On the subject of religion, it doesn't seem to matter what the stance is, too many people are pre-convinced they're right.

 

Yet it is an important topic. Religion has and has had a huge influence on history, morality, and politics. However, having a religion subforum would be an attraction to people who might not make good scientists. So if you do have a religion subforum, make sure to have links to various sites dedicated to religion and encourage people to go there instead. However, many of us would like to discus religion with other members of SFN.

 

I suspect the pre-convinced problem is not due to religion itself, but rather to the unprovable aspect of it. Relativity and quantum mechanics has its share of people convinced they are right even when they are not (though these are "provable", much of the math is beyond people so it is essentially unprovable to them).

[doG]

So have a restricted membership by using a group membership. If the need arises you can configure the VB infraction system to control that membership. The nice thing about the infraction system is that you can have some infractions that cause a temporary restriction and some that cause a permanent expulsion from the group. Initially I would just try a group membership and expel the offenders. If you have the user note system set up you can keep track of who's been expelled and why.

 

What about a system like Slashdot?

 

vBulletin already has some built in features that could be used. A system like Slashdot's would be a custom hack, i.e. extra work.

[Phi for All]

Ludicrous. You'd have no problem had I said the same to a psuedo-scientific concept presented here. Some "theory" with no predictions and no models and just a bunch of hand waving.

Pseudoscience pretends to be science so scientific method applies. Religion doesn't pretend to be a scientific theory (except ID, they're fair game because they've crossed the line). You can't use science to measure what can't be observed.

Either enforce your policy sooner or change it. Clearly your membership wishes to engage in such conversation... such argument... such battles. Too bad that special protection is afforded those who don't have the wherewithal to defend themselves.

Clearly you wish to simply ridicule religion. Why would anyone who wanted to discuss religion want to listen to you? You've made up your mind but there are plenty of others who want to learn.

 

It's not special protection we're offering. Just a chance to discuss something a lot of people consider meaningful, in a medium that allows them to say what they feel without being flamed. How many times do I have to say that religious discussions can't be treated like the normal science topics?

If we were attacking a troll or farsight, you'd be good with it. Think about that.

Maybe that's the difference between you and me, iNow. I don't view what we're trying to accomplish here as an attack.

[YT2095]

I don't view what we're trying to accomplish here as an attack.

 

it isn`t, that`s probably why

 

in fact it`s quite the inverse, it`s to Prevent "attacks" (they get nobody anywhere anyway in the long run).

it`s Also to prevent (what seems to have been overlooked) the Trying to compare apples to oranges, with the exception they don`t even share That much in common!

[Phi for All]

However, that system would drastically change the beautiful atmosphere that is at SFN (well, as compared to many other forums I have been at).

I am sincerely grateful that you appreciate the work we've tried to put in "the beautiful atmosphere that is at SFN". When I visit other forums I see all the open bashing and flaming that goes on and I relish what we have here.

[Reaper]

So do I.

[Royston]

I still think bringing back religious discussion into a science forum, when it clearly hasn't worked before (surely it's good to learn from mistakes) is a terrible idea. I'm a bit disappointed the recent discussions on religion in the psychiatry section and GD weren't locked immediately

 

It seems the small group of individuals who do want to discuss the topic, are all familiar with each others stance on the subject anyway, so why the crap do we need to go back over the same old discussions, again. Pleeeease, don't let this happen, SFN is fine without it.

[iNow]

Yeah... I was pretty heated last night, but I approach religion the same I do science. Phi is right that religion is not science, and this is a huge part of the disagreement, but why must we keep tip-toeing when conversing with one who claims to be religious, or about religious topics themselves? That's a major part of the problem. We approach EVERYTHING else with a need for evidence and support, yet somehow we're supposed to change this completely when religion is involved.

 

Is there anything else that gets censored here at SFN (besides maybe language)?

Is religion somehow different than the rest of the natural universe, and not subject to the same laws?

Is it somehow exempt from the process and methodology of testing hypotheses and rejecting unsupportable claims which has helped us advance societally?

 

Let people share their opinion. Let people be open and disguss what they want. Handle flames on a case by case basis. I know I was out of line last night, but frankly I'm tired of cow tauing to the presumed untouchability of religion.

 

I now know what is and what is not acceptable here in Phi's eyes, but Phi is but one single staff member (and a good one, too, but subject to his own biases which differ from the biases of other staff members).

 

The proverbial "line" is completely subjective, so what are we supposed to do?

[Dak]

Yeah... I was pretty heated last night, but I approach religion the same I do science. Phi is right that religion is not science, and this is a huge part of the disagreement, but why must we keep tip-toeing when conversing with one who claims to be religious, or about religious topics themselves? That's a major part of the problem. We approach EVERYTHING else with a need for evidence and support, yet somehow we're supposed to change this completely when religion is involved.

 

we need to tip-toe out of deferrence to the fact that people feel strongly about religion, so you're effectively treading on their feelings.

 

This is a comment in general, not specific to this site, but if you want to make the claim that religion is the product of stupidity (which you more or less did), then you have to recognise that you'll be offending many people (i.e., religious people). by all means say it, but say it as tactfully as possible and make sure you're right before saying it (e.g., provide evidence). substitue 'religion' with 'woman' or 'black people' if you can't see it: if you really think they're less inteligent, then go ahead and say it, but make damn sure you're right and word it as tactfully and accurately as possible 'cos it's pretty obvious you'll be offending people.

 

IF p&r were to come back to SFN, people would have to treat it in the above manner. a large problem before we got rid of p&r was that people didn't only want to discuss, comment and critisize, but also bitch about religions; also, people confused 'honest bluntness' with 'abrasive rudeness' and tempers got lost.

 

Is there anything else that gets censored here at SFN (besides maybe language)?

 

SFN is a science site that also handles discussions about politics. all non-scientific non-political discussions are liable to be 'censored'. this includes religion.

 

Is religion somehow different than the rest of the natural universe, and not subject to the same laws?

 

Is it somehow exempt from the process and methodology of testing hypotheses and rejecting unsupportable claims which has helped us advance societally?

 

well, yes. by most definitions of 'god', there can be no empiprical evidence to his existance independant of the truthfulness of his existance, putting it outside the realm of science (unlike most stuff in nature).

[iNow]

if you want to make the claim that religion is the product of stupidity (which you more or less did), then you have to recognise that you'll be offending many people (i.e., religious people).

My comment was rooted in evidence that religious belief and education are inversely proportional. While correlation not causation, that's where I rooted it. And frankly, the fact that somebody else is offended is their problem and does nothing to negate the validity of one's claims.

 

 

Some people are offended when a woman shows a little ankle. I am I wrong to point out that I find that silly?

[YT2095]

I gather you consider ME stupid/uneducated also then? as well as one that Breeds too much (as you claimed before)?

[iNow]

I gather you consider ME stupid/uneducated also then? as well as one that Breeds too much (as you claimed before)?

 

I can show how, on average, those of lesser intelligence breed more.

I can show how, on average, those of lesser intelligence tend to exhibit higher religiosity.

 

I cannot show, nor do I personally describe, you (YT2095, brilliant SFN staff member and chemist and father) to be stupid.

I cannot show, nor do I personally describe, you (YT2095, brilliant SFN staff member and chemist and father) to be uneducated, nor that you breed too much.

 

Please try not to be offended by my claim. If you wish to show how I could have said it better, then fine.

 

To be clear, I personally find you (YT2095, brilliant SFN staff member and chemist and father) to be one of the those clearly outside the average... one who is highly intelligent and religious and moderate in his breeding behavior.

 

Cheers.

[YT2095]

I`m not in the slightest bit offended even if you Had have called me these things, the Evidence says otherwise, and That goes towards my point, that you should be Ever So Careful when making sweeping statements and broad generalisations such as those you made (in a now redundant thread).

 

it can only ever serve to reflect Badly upon YOU.

 

and I`m sure that`s not your intention.

[Severian]

Ludicrous. You'd have no problem had I said the same to a psuedo-scientific concept presented here. Some "theory" with no predictions and no models and just a bunch of hand waving.

 

I'm curious. How many alternate models and theories in science have you come up with or scientifically explored? Surely, by your own argument, everything you say on these fora are a waste of time and space?

[Phi for All]

Is there anything else that gets censored here at SFN (besides maybe language)?

Flaming usually leads to retaliation, so if we catch an obvious Flame before any replies are posted we will delete it.

Is religion somehow different than the rest of the natural universe, and not subject to the same laws?

Absolutely. Religion is supernatural, it can't be observed using natural laws. It's just such a huge and popular topic that we generally gave it it's own sub-forum.

Is it somehow exempt from the process and methodology of testing hypotheses and rejecting unsupportable claims which has helped us advance societally?

You got it. It can't be measured by science. But we used to be able to discuss it without resorting to the more obvious logical fallacies like ad hominem and Strawman.

Let people share their opinion.

If opinions can be shared as such, the way it's done in the Politics forum, we'd have no problem. Few people in Politics state, "Show me the evidence why Republicans are better than Democrats!" It's understood that it's mostly opinion.

 

A big part of the problem with religious discussions is staying on topic. A believer would start a thread like, "Did Christianity spark the rise of Islam?" and eventually you'd get an atheist posting that he thought both religions were stupid. It happened the other way around as well. The believers just couldn't stay away from a thread entitled, "Defining Atheism". If a Mod isn't on when it gets posted then it gets replies. When the Mods come one and start deleting people cry censorship. Inevitably the cries of "Prove it!" and "God is omnipotent!" drive away anybody with anything interesting to say.

 

I think what people liked about the old P&R (before it started downhill) was the ability to talk about things outside of scientific methodology without being shot down in flames. We demanded they restrict the use of logical fallacies while still understanding that the topics weren't at all logical.

[iNow]

I'm curious. How many alternate models and theories in science have you come up with or scientifically explored? Surely, by your own argument, everything you say on these fora are a waste of time and space?

 

Can you clarify? The answer to your first question is in the 20s (but they were more accurately described as testable hypotheses instead of theories). I guess I missed how you got from that to your second comment/question.

 

Then again, I suppose it wouldn't be hard to support an argument that everything we all say on these fora are a waste of time and space, but I still am uncertain how you intend this toward me (nor do I personally feel it IS a waste of time, as we all learn and share and grow by reading and posting). Maybe you can clarify?

 

It would appear that I have also offended you with my comments on religion. That's too bad, really. Hopefully this current offense you feel will allow us to become closer later, like brothers becoming closer after a good fight, when we instead discuss all of the things about which we DO agree or share passion.

[Dak]

And frankly, the fact that somebody else is offended is their problem and does nothing to negate the validity of one's claims.

 

so? no one is claiming that people who are overly-insensitive are neccesarily rationally wrong. all that's being said is that people who are overly-insensitive are dicks who are unpleasant to talk with. and as a practical point, wherever you're speaking, if you're untactful about any sensitive subject the conversation is likely to degenerate pretty quickly.

 

hence, IF p&r were to come back, people would have to be more tactful and respectful than they were, and -- the flipside of the coin -- people would have to be more tolerent of valid critisism, even if it's unpleasant.

 

people who are allready making an effort to swallow an unpalatable truth about something that may be central to their life should not also be further burdened with having to swallow rudeness along with it. it's common courtacy.

[ydoaPs]

Absolutely. Religion is supernatural, it can't be observed using natural laws.

Yep, there's NO WAY to observe a talking burning bush, the sun standing still, dead walking the earth, etc.

[doG]

Religion is supernatural, it can't be observed using natural laws.

 

Actually that's only partly true. Non-theistic religions like Buddhism do not rely on the supernatural and religions like Pantheism consider nature itself to be God...

 

It seems the small group of individuals who do want to discuss the topic, are all familiar with each others stance on the subject anyway, so why the crap do we need to go back over the same old discussions, again.

 

So somewhere here someone has previously discussed whether or not religion serves a greater good or not from as a social science perspective? Does law based in religion serve some cultures better? Is it merely a form of indoctrination that violates one's natural born rights?

 

I can't say that I personally know anyone's stance on these but if they've been discussed before I'll try to look them up.

[Phi for All]

Yep, there's NO WAY to observe a talking burning bush, the sun standing still, dead walking the earth, etc.

You must trust the author of those accounts more than I do.

[Severian]

The answer to your first question is in the 20s

 

I find that very hard to believe.

 

I guess I missed how you got from that to your second comment/question.

 

You appeared to be making the point that religion is pointless because it does not lead to testable predictions. I was pointing out that most of mankind's activities are pointless by that criterion.