Cap'n Refsmmat

Well, they can't be too attracted by it, since they have to make 100 posts in the science sections before they can post here.

I think you'll want to attach that image to your post or upload it somewhere on the Internet.

You forget that many theologians have attempted to prove the existence of god using logic alone. (The link is just one example, though one that is still debated to this day.) There's certainly logic to discuss. Also, not every question in our Religion forum will be a question of whether or not God exists. We can, in fact, discuss aspects of religion without arguing about faith. And we can use tact when doing so.

Exactly. Whereas if God decreed that I shall not be allowed to even try, I never would choose to do it.

I'd prefer to call that sort of limited free will "inexpensive will." It's not completely free.

I dunno. If we had no ethics, would we care about the betterment of society?

Did God give humanity free will, or are humans constrained to do only things that God lets them?

God can define the rules (such as the Commandments) without actually creating evil.

If you're talking to an astrologer and you tell them they're not playing with a full deck, that counts as flaming under the regular SFN rules.

We haven't yet been trying to argue religion vs. non-religion, so it's more true that we simply haven't been hearing religious viewpoints on our topics. I would be very happy if we did. Please, we're trying to make the new forums a place where anyone can have a civil discussion regardless of their religious status. At least wait for the forum to earn your disdain before you stay away. I really don't want to end up with the "ARGH YOU'RE STUPID" attitude of the previous religion forum. Perhaps it'll work better this time.

This leads to the Euthyphro problem. There are two options: God does things because they are good. Things are good because God does them. Which is it? If 2 is true, God could do anything we consider to be morally objectionable -- kill thousands of people, smite the Pope, and so on -- and those actions would be good. If 1 is true, there are morals above God. Our instinctive response is that God killing innocent people is bad, so 1 is true, but then there are absolute morals apart from God, and (at least Biblically) he has occasionally broken them.

You also added: We're just trying to preempt trouble by posting in threads. That's all.

Does it solve the problem to say "God doesn't owe us anything at all, but he gives us so much -- life, happiness, etc. -- that we can call him good, even if bad things happen?"

So far, none of the threads in the religion forum boil down to existence. Sure, you could reduce them to "but God doesn't exist!" if you wanted to, but that's not their point. Criticism of beliefs is not offensive. I can say "ah, but that doesn't take into account fact x," and I'd be perfectly tactful. But if I say "you're not taking into account fact x, so clearly you're hiding evidence to cover up for your shameful ignorance," I'm being offensive. And I'm making even less of a contribution to the discussion than the alternative. You can talk about religion even if you don't believe it's true.

What is posted in Religion necessarily consists of opinions. There are no objective facts about God or Zeus. Comparing it to science is a bad analogy. If you insist on attacking others' beliefs, this forum will turn into what the previous forum was: a cesspool, where many threads end up closed and many members end up with infractions. Perhaps you believe that it's possible to run a forum where members freely call each other idiots and everyone is happy and enjoys participation. But I have the benefit of several years of experience watching the previous forum, and I know it won't work. Now. You know it's possible to explain to someone the error in their argument without telling them they're a moron. The personal attack adds nothing to the argument. (Does it help your point to accuse someone of stupidity?) So if you want to discuss, do it without the attack. If you insist on continuing with personal attacks, you will no longer be allowed to post in the religion forum. That goes for everyone, though fortunately nobody has resorted to personal attacks so far.

Forcing people to pay royalties to the producer does not add to their profits?

No, you can argue your side. You just can't call the other side stupid while you do it. I certainly want people to discuss their views until they come to an agreement. But I know that saying "this is nonsense" or "you must be stupid" does not help achieve that.

Nice, I like where this is going, especially the second one.

I don't have Photoshop on me at the moment. If you go to look at the PSD, what font is it that you need? I'll see if I can find it or have dave send it along.

Ooh, cool. I like the brain idea, especially with that blue. If someone could download Dave's PSD and find out what font he used, that'd be great. I think for continuity's sake we should use the same font, since it's distinctive.

I could harvest stem cells from the umbilical cord and make it into a person.

Great, although now any conspiracy theorists will be highly suspicious of us for having a Star of David visible in our logo. (Look carefully.)

Yeah, that's pretty cool. What happens if you remove the center dot from the atom logo? We don't have one in our current logo, and I think it clutters it up a bit. Also, try experimenting with fonts a bit. I have no idea what font dave used for the current logo (the link to the PSD is above), but something visually distinctive would be cool.

No. It's just when we finally understand the universe... so it's destroyed and replaced with an even more absurd one.

But there's no father required.