doG Posted December 1, 2007 Author Share Posted December 1, 2007 You appeared to be making the point that religion is pointless because it does not lead to testable predictions. I would say that is partly true when religions are based of the actions of deities but not all religions are based on deities and some that are can have beliefs that are not founded on their deity. I think there are cultural beliefs arising from religion that are predictable and testable, i.e. if I predict that children which are taught religious intolerance will grow up to hate believers of other faiths then that is a belief that can very well be tested. The analysis of religion or belief systems is an important part in the scientific study of societies and their cultures, far from pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 I find that very hard to believe. 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. I can't really do anything about what you do and don't believe. I also call to your attention the qualifier I put when responding originally. You also seem to be interpreting the posts I've made a little differently than they were intended, but that's fine too. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 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. It was a hasty statement, based on a general feeling I had from previous discussions on religion and it's influence. However, I think it's quite hard to draw a line to let some religious discussion (e.g your examples above) acceptable, and not others, so I personally think it's better to not discuss religion at all, especially when individuals are grounded in a given belief, and they're not likely to budge from their view. I don't see anything wrong with that, but it's not productive discussion if there's a predetermined sense of bias to the subject, whichever belief they may hold. I personally think science is interesting enough, without the need for religious discussion. As strong as the influence religion may have on the world, I don't think a science forum, where learning, debating and understanding scientific subjects, is the right place to discuss religion...just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 and my opinion too. I don`t care if someone`s a Theist or not, I`m not in the least bit interested, as long as their Science is good I`m all ears Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted December 1, 2007 Author Share Posted December 1, 2007 I personally think science is interesting enough, without the need for religious discussion. As strong as the influence religion may have on the world, I don't think a science forum, where learning, debating and understanding scientific subjects, is the right place to discuss religion...just my opinion. So referring to any scientific discussion of societies or cultures is not scientific subject? Would you call social science an oxymoron? Can science analyze society and their culture while ignoring the impact of religion on those societies? IMO religion is a valid part of both social and political science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 I personally think science is interesting enough, without the need for religious discussion. As strong as the influence religion may have on the world, I don't think a science forum, where learning, debating and understanding scientific subjects, is the right place to discuss religion...just my opinion. But this isn't only a science forum. There's also a math section, a politics section, a general discussion section. The reason that religion was removed was not because this is a science forum, but because it was painful to moderate and lead to bad sentiments due to a clash of religious beliefs and scientific beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted December 1, 2007 Author Share Posted December 1, 2007 The reason that religion was removed was not because this is a science forum, but because it was painful to moderate and lead to bad sentiments due to a clash of religious beliefs and scientific beliefs. And there's no reason it needs to be hard to moderate. Limit the participants to those that can discuss it like grown ups and let those that can't go elsewhere to discuss it. They don't deserve to participate in a mature discussion if they can't behave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 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. Well, iNow does have a strong case actually. Religion has produced some of the most pointless topics and ideological motives/actions/beliefs in existence (dancing angels on a needle point anyone ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred56 Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Part of the problem, especially with a sensitive topic like religion, is the interpretation certain terminology is given by different people. "Areligious", or "asexual", does not mean anti-religion, or anti-sex, it means without, or not religious or sexual (some people are asexual, and don't enjoy it either, as I'm sure some NS readers know). Someone who claims they are areligious is not setting out to destroy religion, they just don't believe it. Also the idea of using science to analyse religion is in the same boat as a scientific analysis of some philosophy, kinda meaningless imo. Religion 'belongs' to philosophy, I would hazard, so philosophical argument is its basis, maybe (or not). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 So referring to any scientific discussion of societies or cultures is not scientific subject? Would you call social science an oxymoron? Can science analyze society and their culture while ignoring the impact of religion on those societies? IMO religion is a valid part of both social and political science. I never implied that all areas of religious discussion are unacceptable, or can't be approached scientifically. I was implying that it's hard to draw a line on what's appropriate to discuss. If that line can't be drawn, then it's easier to not discuss the topic. When I said 'science is interesting enough', what I should of said is, there's enough interesting topics in science that don't touch religion, sorry for not being clear...because I agree, social science isn't an oxy-moron. Mr Skeptic, I'm well aware of the reasons P&R got axed, I was here when it happend. My opinions are based on my experiences when P&R was still around, and the theologyforums et.c I've just found SFN better without it, I know there are forums that are not solely science based, and those have been better without religious discussion as well. Don't get me wrong, it is an important subject, and with restrictions it might work, I'm just not convinced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Why don't we all come up with a set of restrictions that we all can agree on if we do actually decide to bring the P&R forum back? That and decide who should be qualified to moderate it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Because we can't agree and nobody wants to moderate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Because we can't agree and nobody wants to moderate it. /me votes for blue_crystal as moderator of P/R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Well, how exactly do you know that? It's not like any effort was made to determine that from what I can tell... For example, why don't we make a thread (or just use this one) and on there the membership along with mods or admins can throw out any suggestion or express how they think the P&R forum should be like, such as what kinds of topics are acceptable, how they should make arguments, where to draw the line between bashing and preaching, who should be allowed to post, and so on. And then at the same time, we could randomly select a number of members to be potential candidates as to who will moderate the subsection (and/or take the responsibility of moving topics to and from that subsection should it deem necessary). Of course, if they don't wish to moderate that particular subsection they can say so. And, I will be happy to volunteer if no one else will do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted December 3, 2007 Author Share Posted December 3, 2007 I'd first limit the membership that has access and remove those that can't behave. I also believe posts there should be omitted from the "Recent Threads" list on the portal. Additionally a sticky in the religion forum should state something like: This is not a forum for preaching the word of God (regardless of which one you may subscribe to). It is a forum for rational discussion of religious thought, and varieties thereof. How does science and religion interact? How does religion impact society? What is the role of religion in education? Why are wars fought over religious ideas? These are examples of topics we hope to see here. This is not the place to discuss Bible verses, nor is it the place to explain why your religion is much better than the alternatives. There are plenty of forums for that on the web already. Please respect our wishes to maintain a forum which first and foremost concerns the scientific aspects of religion, and not the faith aspects of it. Preaching will not be tolerated, and all our usual rules apply. Other ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 I find it curious that someone named doG wants to discuss religion in rational manner. Yet I've found his posts to be quite reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Additionally a sticky in the religion forum should state something like: Your sticky seems to miss the point of what went wrong last time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted December 4, 2007 Author Share Posted December 4, 2007 While I am atheist I am not necessarily areligious. Many atheists do have a belief system like secular humanism, myself included, so I see that side of it. IMO it is one of the more significant variables in many societies. I think Dan Dennett makes a good case for studying religion in this video. Your sticky seems to miss the point of what went wrong last time. What went wrong last time? Was the member participation limited to those that could engage in rational discussion and only those that consistently kept it that way? Was the infraction system used against those that insisted on preaching and/or proselytizing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 The problem wasn't preaching, it was the people who couldn't engage in rational discussion while remaining calm. Perhaps the sticky should point that out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 I think an extra "you must agree to abide by these rules" type of agreement before being allowed to post there would be better than just a sticky. That way no one can complain that they didn't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 I think an extra "you must agree to abide by these rules" type of agreement before being allowed to post there would be better than just a sticky. That way no one can complain that they didn't know. I might regret saying this later, as I sometimes get heated in these discussions, but frankly, nobody can complain regardless. This is a privately moderated and controlled site, and the staff makes the rules and decisions. If the staff decide someone can no longer participate in the P&R forum, then tough. No extra "I accept" blanket agreement required. The admins have the final say and there are no legal issues involved (that's what those agreements are generally for... legal protection). Who actually reads those things, anyway? Instant gratification means... sure... whatever it takes to get me in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 The problem wasn't preaching, it was the people who couldn't engage in rational discussion while remaining calm. Perhaps the sticky should point that out. I agree too. ============================================= Perhaps a warning that debates can get quite heated too? I don't mind heated debates, but I do think that we should try and decide where to draw the line between "heated" and then just plain bashing and other immature behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dak Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 This is a privately moderated and controlled site, and the staff makes the rules and decisions. If the staff decide someone can no longer participate in the P&R forum, then tough. indeed. "don't be a dick; if you are a problem, you will be made to go away, end of story" should suffice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Because we can't agree and nobody wants to moderate it. Well' date=' how exactly do you know that? It's not like any effort was made to determine that from what I can tell...[/quote'] That's not true. We've had a religious section for of the time that I've been a member here. Sayo is right -- nobody wants to moderate it -- that was what killed it last time, IIRC. For that matter, P&R has almost always been a completely Pangloss-free zone. (Uh oh, I probably just increased interest in it.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Well, how exactly do you know that? It's not like any effort was made to determine that from what I can tell... That would be because you are not privy to the staff discussions about the P&R forum which have been going on since FOREVER. Believe me, it is not like we are not trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts