Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

As many of you have read, we're going to open a separate forum on a separate domain for philosophy and religion. Why?

 

1) Moderators are spending way too much time (capn mentioned 7/10 reported posts) sorting out who said what and why in the philosophy and religion forums.

2) The primary purpose of this site is not to be a philosophy and religion forum, and we are not currently equipped to manage it as such.

3) The moderating team here (and the admins) are largely uninterested in trying to manage it as such. We are a science forum--that's it.

 

There is no perfect solution. So what we decided to do was to split the sites, but keep the same usernames/passwords. Everyone who is currently registered here will have their usernames and passwords already reserved on the new forum. Everyone who registers here in the future will automatically have a username and password on both forums. However, PMS, warnings, post counts, etc, will all be site specific.

 

The link to philosophy/religion will remain here on the forums as it is--maybe some subfora links will be added. However, instead of going into the forum here on SFN, it will link out to the new philosophy/religion site where your current username and password will work. The plan is to have a new leadership team (some cross-over perhaps, if current leaders are interested), new rules, and new forums.

 

Since many here are very involved with the forums in question, I think its only fair if we ask for your input on the new forum. We're doing this for you, might as well have it like you want it.

 

First, we need to decide on a domain name. Presently, I own theologyboard.com and theologyforums.net. If you guys don't like either of these, I am quite willing to take suggestions if the suggested name is available (please check it before suggesting).

 

Once a domain is decided, we can set up a forum over there to sort out how the fora should be set up. Again, if you're interested in the new forum please help us develop it and make it into something enjoyable for everyone.

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

What makes this forum more than half-arsed (I'd say we're a good three-quarter arsed) is that there are people here who have some idea about this science lark. What a theology site will need to do is to attract the same sorts of people, who have the knowledge and hard-headedness to belt discussions into shape. I'm not sure how to do that, but I think that you should try to attract those sort of people. Promises of a blissful afterlife seem to be in vogue.

Posted

I'm hoping the connection between SFN and the new site should help it bring in the critical thinkers. Of course, we'll also get "die religion DIE!!!!" sorts of people that way, but we can deal with them.

Posted
First, we need to decide on a domain name. Presently, I own theologyboard.com and theologyforums.net. If you guys don't like either of these, I am quite willing to take suggestions if the suggested name is available (please check it before suggesting).

 

theologyforumsanddebate.net? :D

 

can we have 'an emphasis on logic/rational/evidence/etc wherever possible' built-into the rules of the new forum please? you know, to keep it kinda sciency, and so people cant get all 'my oppinion = teh truth, and you can't complain because this isn't a science site etc'?

 

 

 

 

 

still recon it should stay on this site grumble grumble moan mean old admin

Posted
still recon it should stay on this site grumble grumble moan mean old admin

That's ten warning points :D

 

can we have 'an emphasis on logic/rational/evidence/etc wherever possible' built-into the rules of the new forum please? you know, to keep it kinda sciency, and so people cant get all 'my oppinion = teh truth, and you can't complain because this isn't a science site etc'?

That would be good, although it still is difficult to keep a religion site highly logical. We'll have to make some sacrifices, but we'll try to retain some of the best from the current forum.

Posted
can we have 'an emphasis on logic/rational/evidence/etc wherever possible' built-into the rules of the new forum please? you know, to keep it kinda sciency, and so people cant get all 'my oppinion = teh truth, and you can't complain because this isn't a science site etc'?
If other people think this is reasonable then I am all for it. You guys will have to figure out how to implement it.
Posted

Yeah, I think people are going to have to accept that there will be a different mindset when talking about religion/philosophy. If the goal is to have less Admin work, then the rules should be more lax, but the punishment more severe. Punishment would be given equally to flamers and those who counter-flame, to avoid excessive chain posts.

 

And of course, all belief systems can be attacked, except Islam :)

 

Just kidding.

Posted
theologyforumsanddebate.net? :D

 

too wordy, I think. Theologyforums.net isn't bad, but it also makes it sound as if we don't want atheists.

 

can we have 'an emphasis on logic/rational/evidence/etc wherever possible' built-into the rules of the new forum please? you know, to keep it kinda sciency, and so people cant get all 'my oppinion = teh truth, and you can't complain because this isn't a science site etc'?

How about a subforum dedicated specifically to this?

still recon it should stay on this site grumble grumble moan mean old admin

 

I felt this way at first too, but if the new site works I'm sure it will be even better than before.

 

PS - I definately want in on this project, in whatever ways you guys want me to help, I will do my best. :cool:

Posted

How about a subforum dedicated specifically to this?

 

A subforum dedicted to "logic/rational/evidence" may lead to the impression that logic/rational/evidence are not welcome in the rest of the site.

Posted

The entire idea seems good to me, except the shared userbase. I would prefer to copy all current users with their passwords to the new religion forums, so all currently registered SFN users can login at that site as well. But once the split is made, newcomers who register here are not members at the religion forums and vice versa. If someone really is interested in discussing both science and religion, then they will take the effort to register twice. I think that the religion forums should be an entirely separate site, with its own independent userbase.

 

If this split is not made, then I see no real difference with the current situation. Then you still click the religion link and you get to a forum with religion issues in it. Technically, the solution is very different, from a functional point of view, I hardly see any differences.

 

Having links to each others is OK, and making some advertisement trying to attract people to the other forum also is OK, but please keep them functionally separate.

 

The name theologyforums.net seems OK to me, it is the same type of name as scienceforums.net. Picking yet another domainname different from theologyforums.net or theologyboards.com (you already have reserved two names already) seems a waste of money and resources to me, but of course, I cannot look into your wallet ;). But on the new forums, make clear that ANY religious person and also agnostic and atheist persons are welcome. I agree with the point of ecoli about the name, but having a clear message on the board will resolve that issue.

Posted

What about:

 

scienceforums.net/theology

scienceforums.net/philsophy

 

Seems like the server could take it, might be cheaper, or do you have to pay for each vbb board that you create?

 

Anyway that way you can keep the idea that the base of the users have scientific background yet clearly express that the topics are not AND you get to keep the consistency of the name. It might even add to the ranking system of google too...

 

That's how I would do it, I just don't know if it's practical. Practicality isn't my strength though, nor logic, being reasonable, or just plain intellegent. :D

Posted
A subforum dedicted to "logic/rational/evidence" may lead to the impression that logic/rational/evidence are not welcome in the rest of the site.

 

I agree, perhaps that should be in the forum policy...'things you should know' et.c

 

However 'evidence' shouldn't really be a prefix of debate in a theology forum...rationality, absolutely...logic, in some respects yes. It depends what the discussion is, and perhaps 'philosophy of logic' could be a good sub forum...perhaps.

 

Is this purely a 'theology' forum, because isn't a philosophy forum being implemented into SFN bar any religious undertones ? Sorry if this was already brought up on this thread, I just scanned through.

Posted
Is this purely a 'theology' forum, because isn't a philosophy forum being implemented into SFN bar any religious undertones ? Sorry if this was already brought up on this thread, I just scanned through.

Philosophy is common to both science and theology, and as such should be accommodated on both sites.

 

Don't forget that philosophy is more of a way of thinking than a "thing" to think about.

Posted
Is this purely a 'theology' forum, because isn't a philosophy forum being implemented into SFN bar any religious undertones ? Sorry if this was already brought up on this thread, I just scanned through.

 

I have the same question. All of this sounds so tilted to theology rather than a more even handed Philosophy and Religion title. But, perhaps I've missed something obvious and this is for a good reason.

Posted
Philosophy is common to both science and theology, and as such should be accommodated on both sites.

 

That's what I was getting at, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. So philosophical arguments in the realms of science on SFN...and all branches of philosophy and religious debate on the other forum...perhaps.

 

Don't forget that philosophy is more of a way of thinking than a "thing" to think about.

 

I know, but obviously you ascribe a faculty in which to philosophize...e.g philosophy of mathematics, or arguments specific to philosophy alone e.g positivism.

Posted
What about:

 

scienceforums.net/theology

scienceforums.net/philsophy

 

Seems like the server could take it, might be cheaper, or do you have to pay for each vbb board that you create?

We're required to pay for each and every board, even if it's scienceforums.net/forums/ and scienceforums.net/theologystuff/.

Posted

you want an alternative to consider? take a poll or something?

 

ultimateconcerns.net

 

 

the chairman of the religion department at my undergrad Liberal Arts college did not like the term "theology"

 

he thought religion should be taught as part of the liberal arts curriculum, indeed as a kind of central focus that puts other parts together

 

religion for him did not necessarily involve a "God" idea but was an expression of ultimate concern

 

a person's religion was how he thought and acted regarding what was of ultimate concern.

 

in a sense, your religion is your ultimate concerns

 

the guy had national stature---nominally as a "theologian"---I think he influenced how the Religious Studies program at Stanford shaped up.

He lived 1912-1989.

 

I took his course in religion. Great. we read the Baghavagita and the Analects as well as Bible and modern spiritual thinkers it was not a "comparative" religion, or "world religions" course. It was a essential religion religion course.

 

anyway old C. H. disliked the term "theology" ---- religion meant something more than that to him. So I'll toss out his phrase as a suggestion.

Posted

I don't really like the name. "Theology" is only one branch of philosophy, that is, investigating the nature of God. Naming it that sounds like that's all we're interested in, even if the forum policies say otherwise. I don't think I would be interested in a "theology forum" if I just happened to come across it.

 

On the other hand, it might actually attract some, you know, theologians, although I'm not sure whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing.

Posted
So theologyforums.net?

 

I think so. I like the way 'theology' sounds because it infers a disciplined study. We don't want any soap-boxers or preachers.

Posted
you want an alternative to consider? take a poll or something?

 

ultimateconcerns.net

 

 

the chairman of the religion department at my undergrad Liberal Arts college did not like the term "theology"

 

he thought religion should be taught as part of the liberal arts curriculum, indeed as a kind of central focus that puts other parts together

 

religion for him did not necessarily involve a "God" idea but was an expression of ultimate concern

 

a person's religion was how he thought and acted regarding what was of ultimate concern.

 

in a sense, your religion is your ultimate concerns

 

the guy had national stature---nominally as a "theologian"---I think he influenced how the Religious Studies program at Stanford shaped up.

He lived 1912-1989.

 

I took his course in religion. Great. we read the Baghavagita and the Analects as well as Bible and modern spiritual thinkers it was not a "comparative" religion, or "world religions" course. It was a essential religion religion course.

 

anyway old C. H. disliked the term "theology" ---- religion meant something more than that to him. So I'll toss out his phrase as a suggestion.

 

...I like the way 'theology' sounds because it infers a disciplined study. We don't want any soap-boxers or preachers.

 

but it is a study of only a PART of religion.

 

 

But anyway, Blike, would you like to put it to a poll? Maybe people of ecoli's opinion will greatly outnumber others.

 

Maybe only a small minority will prefer some other alternative like

 

ultimateconcerns.net

 

or Sisyphus may come up with an idea

 

Let's do a poll between two, three, four alternatives or so and see what people like.

Posted
However 'evidence' shouldn't really be a prefix of debate in a theology forum...rationality, absolutely...logic, in some respects yes. It depends what the discussion is, and perhaps 'philosophy of logic' could be a good sub forum...perhaps.

 

'evidence' as in: if you say that atheists = satanists, all muslims like al quaeda and have appauling attetudes to women, etc, then there should be some supporting evidence provided, at least upon request ;)

 

i guess it's unavoidable that evidence wont be possible for purely theological (ie, does god exist) questions.

 

 

 

(theologyforums.net sounds good to me)

Posted

well, put it up for an advisory vote,

I don't mind losing to a gentleman. :)

 

ultimateconcerns.net

 

versus

 

theologyforums.net

 

==================

 

CapRef, many of the most interesting aspects of religion

(social, political, mores about marriage and the family, religion-and-science issues....) are not subject to rational resolution

 

many other courses besides theology are taught at Schools of Religion (I live within 4 blocks of the Pacific School of Religion, could pick up a course list if anyone is interested.

 

"rational" sounds good, but rational in the sense of conventional theology doesn't cover a lot of ways we need to understand religion in today's world and what religion topics people most want to discuss.

 

anyway, let's see what other people say

maybe we should have an open thread, to minimize the waiting time

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • 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.