Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jimmydasaint

A New Faith and Science Forum

Recommended Posts

The problem with a moderation queue is the burden it places on the moderators, and the problem of the bias of the moderators making the decision.

 

We have a hard enough time with incivility in discussing politics. Religion is more problematic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with a moderation queue is the burden it places on the moderators, and the problem of the bias of the moderators making the decision.

 

We have a hard enough time with incivility in discussing politics. Religion is more problematic.

 

QFT

 

That's what I was trying to say in my first couple of posts in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider the physiological process of conscious thought. At one extreme there is the classic 'Fight or Flight' decision. A life or death choice to be made within seconds. Neurons firing off amok! At the other end we observe 'speaking in tongues'. The subject is merely a conduit for God's manipulations. No thinking involved, otherwise the concept is self-negating. First example-low entropy. Second example-high entropy. Consequently, unless the human element is removed, religion is a natural outcome of the 2nd Law. {NOTE: Liturgical activities lie somewhere in between.}

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with a moderation queue is the burden it places on the moderators, and the problem of the bias of the moderators making the decision.

 

We have a hard enough time with incivility in discussing politics. Religion is more problematic.

 

You could always make that ydoaPs guy a moderator :P

 

Consider the physiological process of conscious thought. At one extreme there is the classic 'Fight or Flight' decision. A life or death choice to be made within seconds. Neurons firing off amok! At the other end we observe 'speaking in tongues'. The subject is merely a conduit for God's manipulations. No thinking involved, otherwise the concept is self-negating. First example-low entropy. Second example-high entropy. Consequently, unless the human element is removed, religion is a natural outcome of the 2nd Law. {NOTE: Liturgical activities lie somewhere in between.}

 

o.O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Consider the physiological process of conscious thought. At one extreme there is the classic 'Fight or Flight' decision. A life or death choice to be made within seconds. Neurons firing off amok! At the other end we observe 'speaking in tongues'. The subject is merely a conduit for God's manipulations. No thinking involved, otherwise the concept is self-negating. First example-low entropy. Second example-high entropy. Consequently, unless the human element is removed, religion is a natural outcome of the 2nd Law. {NOTE: Liturgical activities lie somewhere in between.}

 

*facepalm*

 

You're really not helping the team you're thinking you're helping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*facepalm*

 

You're really not helping the team you're thinking you're helping.

 

Or maybe he is helping the team he thinks he's helping but you think he thinks he's helping the team that he's not helping. Savvy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You could always make that ydoaPs guy a moderator :P

 

Catch-22.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:o

 

Sports references have no place in a science forum!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:o

 

Sports references have no place in a science forum!

I think it's more of a farm reference. Have you ever not grown alfalfa?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Catch-22 is a satirical, historical novel by the American author Joseph Heller, first published in 1961.

 

Among other things, Catch-22 is a general critique of bureaucratic operation and reasoning. Resulting from its specific use in the book, the phrase "Catch-22" is common idiomatic usage meaning "a no-win situation" or "a double bind" of any type.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Catch-22... Will penicillin help with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol, what?
It's a government thing, a major secret. A Major Major Major Major secret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a government thing, a major secret. A Major Major Major Major secret.

 

None of that, ___ for All, or I'll poison your sweet potatoes.

 

The specific reference in the novel (set in WWII at an airbase) is that to be grounded, you needed to request it. The only condition that would permit grounding was to be crazy, but if you wanted to be grounded, you weren't crazy. It's later expanded to be a more all-encompassing "you can't win" type of maxim. It's a great piece of satire. I recommend reading it.

 

Applied here, it's this: anyone who seeks to be a moderator is not qualified to be a moderator. It's a version of the idea that people who actively seek power and control are not to be trusted with it. The more they want it, the less you should trust them.

 

 

I didn't mean to hijack the discussion with this. Oh well, what the hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
None of that, ___ for All, or I'll poison your sweet potatoes.
Do all physicists make Snark-y references?

 

What if we resurrect the Religion forum and make it where you have to ask for permission to post in it, and no one with an agenda will be allowed. So if you ask for permission, you obviously have an agenda, so....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't mean to hijack the discussion with this. Oh well, what the hell.

 

Well you damn mods can do whatever you want, so it doesn't matter does it? :D

 

And thanks for explaining...I really thought Phi For All was being literal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nd thanks for explaining...I really thought Phi For All was being literal.
No, I was being literary. In Catch-22, there is a character with the last name Major, whose father gave him the first and middle names Major Major. The father was an alfalfa farmer who was paid not to grow crops, and who promptly got up every day at noon to make sure the chores weren't done. He used his government subsidies to buy more land to not grow alfalfa on.

 

When the son went into the army, a computer glitch promoted him from Private to Major, so he became Major Major Major Major. As swansont said, Catch-22 is a great satire and you should give it a read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do all physicists make Snark-y references?

 

Some make anti-snark-y references, and that can get quite messy when they annihilate.

 

What if we resurrect the Religion forum and make it where you have to ask for permission to post in it, and no one with an agenda will be allowed. So if you ask for permission, you obviously have an agenda, so....

 

Perfect. And it makes all this discussion on-topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some make anti-snark-y references, and that can get quite messy when they annihilate.
Pft. I was expecting some of that God-like rep power for my triple entendre. :P

 

But now that I've mentioned it, you can't give it. It's one of those whatchamacallits....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why bothering so much about religion? :confused:

Edited by zule

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've created various philosophy/religion boards, and we've tried keeping them established. However, here are my views:

 

1. We should keep them around.

Yes, it'd be an excellent idea to continue philosophical discussions about science and what it "is."

 

2. We should stop moderating them or taking them too serious

 

Yeah, I think that would be the best way to keep them around. Perhaps a disclaimer: "You are entering the unstable/argumentative part of SFN. Be warned that opinions and views may not be on part of SFN or the aggregate of SFN. Caution is advised."

 

Leave it like that, and let people bicker, argue, discuss, discover, etc. on their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If no one tried to make unsupported claims or dismissive remarks, I think a faith subforum discussion area could work.

 

If it is true, then yes. Surely there would be mention of someone's dead loved one walking the Earth. Or perhaps there'd be some empty graves of people who died before then.

 

Perhaps there would be a Roman record of the trial and/or capital punishment.

 

While you cannot directly measure it being false by absence of these things, the presence of these things would be scientifically measurable.

 

However, there are times where an absence of evidence can be supporting evidence.

 

For instance: Matthew mentions Herod massacring all the infants of the area. Provided it is true, there could be several things to provide evidence such as historical accounts or an unusual spike in infant graves in the area at the time.

What if the bibles just mixed in sprinkles of real history with its stories?

 

The problem anyway is that finding circumstantial/supporting evidence for one biblical description isn't whatsoever proof for the other biblical descriptions.

 

 

Catch-22... Will penicillin help with that?

:D

 

It's later expanded to be a more all-encompassing "you can't win" type of maxim.

I thought catch-22 meant the "solution" was in reality just an instant shortcut back to the problem.

 

Edit: or that a feedback loop's created either between a problem and its solution, or between two problems.

Edited by Baby Astronaut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If no one tried to make unsupported claims or dismissive remarks, I think a faith subforum discussion area could work.
Given the nature of faith¹, it would be a very quiet subforum.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

¹ Belief without evidence or despite contrary evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
¹ Belief without evidence or despite contrary evidence.

That's just it. Personal belief can be labeled as such, thus wouldn't be a claim, just a belief specific to that person's reckonings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.