doG Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 There's still a forum listed for this on the forum index page even though TheologyForums.net seems to have met it's demise... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 yeah, the admin forgot to transfer it to the new servers. don't know if they have a backup or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 God did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 When blike canceled the old hosting, we kind of forgot that TFN was still on it. I don't think there were backups, either. I can check with blike though. Oops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 What a wonderfully ignominious end for such a breathtakingly dreadful site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 I will admit that it, err, needed some work. We're still pondering whether or not to try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 What a wonderfully ignominious end for such a breathtakingly dreadful site. roflcopter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 I will admit that it, err, needed some work. We're still pondering whether or not to try again. Following up to this, and given recent staff discussion on the issue, it is highly unlikely that TFN will be reinstated. We're considering options at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted July 1, 2007 Author Share Posted July 1, 2007 I figured the decision to kill it was made already. I was just posting a reminder for someone to remove the redirect to it on the forum index page.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted July 3, 2007 Author Share Posted July 3, 2007 I just noticed the link to originsdebate.com on the homepage is dead too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 We kind of forgot about TFN, WiSci and OD all at once. edit: links removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 I just noticed the link to originsdebate.com on the homepage is dead too...We discovered you can't separate the origins issue from other parts of spirituality with any degree of success. We still want to offer an outlet for discussing Philosophy and Religion (with the usual argument parameters we enforce everywhere else) but it would mean a lot of restrictions on what can be discussed. No more threads on why religious beliefs are illogical. We also don't really want to compare and contrast religions (beyond where it might have impacted scientific efforts or has some other historical relevance). Nobody wants to waste any more time on creationism issues. And nobody wants to spend any more effort trying to read why one religion is best or worst for all of us. But we should be able to talk about matters that are outside of the scientific purview without resorting to fallacious logic. Unobservable doesn't mean it isn't there, it just means that scientific method can't be applied. When mixing science and religion, you can't use one to refute the other. If we do bring back P&R in some form we need to keep these things in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted July 4, 2007 Author Share Posted July 4, 2007 We discovered you can't separate the origins issue from other parts of spirituality with any degree of success.... I was just pointing out the dead links that needed to be removed. There's plenty of sites to debate origins at if I were interested in that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted July 5, 2007 Author Share Posted July 5, 2007 We kind of forgot about TFN, WiSci and OD all at once. edit: links removed. The link for the Philosophy and Religion forum is still on the forums index page.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 Oh, that link. That one doesn't count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 If we do bring back P&R in some form we need to keep these things in mind. Personally, and this was discussed last night...I think theology forums should be condemned to the fiery pits of hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 Well Said that Mollusc! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 Personally, and this was discussed last night...I think theology forums should be condemned to the fiery pits of hell. Well, they are. AFAIK, they were lost with the server migration. Do you feel the same about a new P&R section? Do you believe SFN should be science only? Or do you think most anything can be discussed applying SFN's no-fallacies methodology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 Do you feel the same about a new P&R section? Yes. Do you believe SFN should be science only? Yes. Or do you think most anything can be discussed applying SFN's no-fallacies methodology? Whether there is a no fallacies method, doesn't guarantee the debate goes anywhere, which I've seen time and time again with religious topics, and philosophy. Although I enjoy philosophy, I just feel it's not particularly suitable on SFN, A. Because it doesn't appear to be that popular (the recently closed philosophy of science.) B. A lot of philosophy is open ended, or at least the subjects I've seen raised on SFN, and the logical rigour seems sadly lacking, which is so important with true philosophy. It seemed that pondering, was considered philosophy on here an awful lot...there's a lot more to it than that. If a P&R site is reinstated, I don't think it should be affiliated with SFN as a sister site, or I'll go as far to say not advertised on SFN. I think that was one of the problems with TFN. It should have no connection with science. Also, some of the subjects raised in speculations, are probably enough to not warrant a philosophy section. Just my thoughts...I personally feel (besides the problem of crack-pottery occasionally) that SFN has been much better without P&R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 Just my thoughts...I personally feel (besides the problem of crack-pottery occasionally) that SFN has been much better without P&R.Do you feel the same about the Politics subforum? YT hates that one too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted July 6, 2007 Author Share Posted July 6, 2007 I tend to think there are plenty of philosophy and religion forums on the web already. How many people that come here to discuss religion really come to discuss social science as opposed to simply espousing their religious view? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 Do you feel the same about the Politics subforum? YT hates that one too. Not really, I actually quite like the politics subforum, probably because a lot of the arguments can be backed up with data...or at least they should. Although you do get problems similar to my previous post, it doesn't appear to be as bad as some of the arguments raised concerning religion for example. Pangloss does a fine job at keeping the discussion in order. Plus 'general discussion' is usually lively and quite fun, for other non-scientific related errr discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 I tend to think there are plenty of philosophy and religion forums on the web already. How many people that come here to discuss religion really come to discuss social science as opposed to simply espousing their religious view?There are other P&R forums out there but that's their main concern. P&R would be just a subforum for us. Other sites allow all kinds of preaching and fallacious logic as well, especially ad hominems, Appeal to Tradition and Hasty Generalizations. SFN calls people out on these and even bans people who use them repeatedly as the basis for their arguments. On the whole I think most things can be discussed productively using our methods, even opinion-based subjects like religion and politics. If we re-opened P&R, only members who can discuss Philosophy and Religion with the SFN policies in mind will be allowed to post. And only people with 50 or more posts in the regular sub-forums (minus GD) would be eligible, so drive-by preachers won't happen. Also creationism won't even be discussed since it attempts to use religion to disprove science (of course the opposite won't be allowed either). I don't like the idea that science and critical thinking are only for certain aspects of my life. I find they can be applied in many ways outside the normal scientific arenas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 Not really, I actually quite like the politics subforum, probably because a lot of the arguments can be backed up with data...or at least they should. Good philosophy is backed up with data(where data is available). What good is a philosophy that isn't based in real world facts? I don't like the idea that science and critical thinking are only for certain aspects of my life. I find they can be applied in many ways outside the normal scientific arenas. See above. If we re-opened P&R, only members who can discuss Philosophy and Religion with the SFN policies in mind will be allowed to post. And only people with 50 or more posts in the regular sub-forums (minus GD) would be eligible, so drive-by preachers won't happen. Also creationism won't even be discussed since it attempts to use religion to disprove science (of course the opposite won't be allowed either). Indeed. We could have a general philosophy section and move the Biomedical Ethics to a subforum of general philosophy. I would say the same thing for Philosophy of Science, but it seems to have been moved to the archives(I've never really read any posts there, however). I do think, though, that a Religion subforum here is doomed from the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 I do think, though, that a Religion subforum here is doomed from the start.I disagree. The main mistake we made before was thinking unrestricted discussion was fair and therefore right for P&R. This allowed trolls who were only interested in either trashing religion or promoting their own religion to post in the subforum. Since we know historically there is no merit in such discussions they won't be allowed. Period. So if you're convinced there is no God, feel free to stay away from the new P&R (at least the religion threads). Same thing if you're absolutely convinced that *your* belief in God is the only true belief. Open yet skeptical minds only please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts