Religion Sub Forum Hiatus

[jimmydasaint]

Cap'n - can I please make a point of order about the Religion subforum.

 

It should be renamed 'Religion and Science,' because some of the keener members of the Science Forum are using it to present religious views without scientific justification. I am actually a religious person, but I want to discuss religion in a scientific context, the whole point of a sub Forum. I am quite disappointed at how it is turning out, with all the 'soapboxing' and the 'preaching'. Please do something....!

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Preaching and soapboxing are against religion rule #3 and SFN rule #8. Please do use the Report link at the bottom left of the post if you notice it.

 

I was very happy with the Religion forum until just recently; I think a few recent conversations have diverged from our original goals. But looking at the Religion forum topics list, I think many of the "successful" topics weren't exactly "religion and science." I wonder how we can better clarify the role of that forum...

[pioneer]

One of the problems is, the topic is religion, yet religious proof is not allowed. For a religious person, this might be quotes from spiritual sources of religious expertise. These source might be people who spent their life pondering these things, like any other expert. There is wisdom there.

 

The analogy is a scientist going to a religion site, to a topic called science, to discuss science. This seems reasonable. However, once he gets there he not be allowed to use any scientific proof due to site rules. How irrational is that. It give the impression of race fixing, so the home team does not have to think or work. The topic then degenerates to name calling, since this is more allowable than a violation of the home team rule advantage.

[jimmydasaint]

One of the problems is, the topic is religion, yet religious proof is not allowed. For a religious person, this might be quotes from spiritual sources of religious expertise. These source might be people who spent their life pondering these things, like any other expert. There is wisdom there.

 

The analogy is a scientist going to a religion site, to a topic called science, to discuss science. This seems reasonable. However, once he gets there he not be allowed to use any scientific proof due to site rules. How irrational is that. It give the impression of race fixing, so the home team does not have to think or work. The topic then degenerates to name calling, since this is more allowable than a violation of the home team rule advantage.

 

pioneer - sensible comments. However, bear in mind that scriptural exegesis is not likely to be regarded as proof by the majority of the sfn members here. So, to my mind, it restricts debate to science AND religion and not science VS religion, which is the way believers seem to see it. Why quote from scriptures which have been tampered with and do not seem divine as a consequence?

 

Preaching and soapboxing are against religion rule #3 and SFN rule #8. Please do use the Report link at the bottom left of the post if you notice it.

 

Cap'n - I intend to report inappropriate postings in this Forum far more often. Thanks.

Edited August 12, 2010 by jimmydasaint