Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 8, 2007 Posted July 8, 2007 It is indeed trivial to disable a user's access to a particular forum, and we'd likely use that ability to make P&R tolerable. If you contribute well to science but troll in the religion forums, we can fix that problem without banning you entirely. The use of tools like that, and more moderator attention, makes me think that P&R 2.0 could work. If we're proactive and stop trolling before it becomes a serious problem, P&R could stay. It's worth a shot, I think.
Dak Posted July 8, 2007 Posted July 8, 2007 P&R 2.0 could work. p&r 3.0 if it doesn't work, we could allways try turning it into just p. ethics and non-religious philosophy should, in theory, be groovy. not likely to get "bwah, how dare you critisize kantiism, you stupid utalitarian"
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2007 Posted July 8, 2007 Is there going to be some sort of separate warning system to determine when a member may no longer post, or will it be more of a subjective thing? Will there be temp-bans like in the regular forums? etc. The idea is good, it just needs details worked on. p&r 3.0 if it doesn't work, we could allways try turning it into just p. ethics and non-religious philosophy should, in theory, be groovy. not likely to get "bwah, how dare you critisize kantiism, you stupid utalitarian" That's what I was thinking.
doG Posted July 8, 2007 Author Posted July 8, 2007 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. So, is it fair for those that lack belief in any Gods to ask for proof from those that do believe in Gods? I'm perfectly open to the possibility of God(s) but thus far I don't think there's ever been any evidence. How critical could members be of proffered evidence?
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 9, 2007 Posted July 9, 2007 So, is it fair for those that lack belief in any Gods to ask for proof from those that do believe in Gods? I'm perfectly open to the possibility of God(s) but thus far I don't think there's ever been any evidence. How critical could members be of proffered evidence? Up to the point of insulting the person presenting the evidence. Presumably, a religious person will argue that it boils down to faith, and there's not much you can do to argue against that. Is there going to be some sort of separate warning system to determine when a member may no longer post, or will it be more of a subjective thing? Will there be temp-bans like in the regular forums? etc. The idea is good, it just needs details worked on. It'll work the same way as regular bans do. Mods can set temporary bans and the whole deal. As for warnings, that's more difficult, so the likely system will simply be for moderators to recognize that someone is a repeat offender, send them a PM, hope they get better, and if they don't, remove them from the forum.
Phi for All Posted July 9, 2007 Posted July 9, 2007 So, is it fair for those that lack belief in any Gods to ask for proof from those that do believe in Gods? I'm perfectly open to the possibility of God(s) but thus far I don't think there's ever been any evidence. How critical could members be of proffered evidence?Not really interested in fair. And I'm definitely not interested in trying to use science and religion to prove or disprove one another. It's like trying to use a graduated cylinder to measure how long your driveway is.
Royston Posted July 9, 2007 Posted July 9, 2007 Good philosophy is backed up with data(where data is available). I realize this, I was just pointing out that many of the subjects (and this includes politics...as I said the same problems can crop up as outlined in my second post) that this just isn't possible. Many of the subjects are outside science, and some outside deductive logic e.g ethics. The politics section however is very popular, the old P&R section suffered due to the same problems as TFN, IMO. The 'philosophy in science' section wasn't very popular at all. Seeing as only myself and one other, think it's a waste of time, perhaps a new P&R section will be introduced, I don't know...simple resolution for me, is not to visit it. However I was asked why I didn't think it was suitable. Maybe we should put it to a vote, to see what others think ?
doG Posted July 9, 2007 Author Posted July 9, 2007 Not really interested in fair. And I'm definitely not interested in trying to use science and religion to prove or disprove one another. Me either. I am interested in opening the minds of those that insist there is a God because they say so. I don't believe in any God(s) but freely admit the possibility, I'm an open minded skeptic. As such I expect those that insist that there is a God to either prove it or admit the possibility that there are no Gods. If they are too close minded to do this then they don't belong in any philosophy forum on religion. FWIW, I do feel it works the other way too.
Phi for All Posted July 9, 2007 Posted July 9, 2007 I don't believe in any God(s) but freely admit the possibility, I'm an open minded skeptic.Then you're exactly what we're looking for.
YT2095 Posted July 9, 2007 Posted July 9, 2007 exactly what SOME are looking for! currently SFN is running smoothly without any problems at all (exactly as it should be), it`s easy to Moderate, and there`s no wars going on, the Science is great, it`s just perfect. WHY would Anyone wish to bork it all up AGAIN? it`s insanity!
Dak Posted July 9, 2007 Posted July 9, 2007 Seeing as only myself and one other, think it's a waste of time, perhaps a new P&R section will be introduced, I don't know...simple resolution for me, is not to visit it. coincidentally, if it comes back, it'll be ignorable: you can opt-out, and not see the forum on the forums index, nor the posts in the recent posts list. anything spilling out of P&R and into the main science bits will be dealt with heavily (probably by an irate YT ), so, if you want, it'd be as if P&R had never come back. which makes you wonder why some people are so against it, given that we're taking pains to make it so isolated and easy to ignore...
YT2095 Posted July 9, 2007 Posted July 9, 2007 can I opt out NOW!? and can we have a Meteorology section added also, that is at least Science. it`s not like I`m asking for "Basket weaving" or "Flower arranging" or a "Religion" section for instance
GutZ Posted July 9, 2007 Posted July 9, 2007 You should allow the theology and philosophy back on this site. We're human our brain work in a specific manner, so weh none hold a specific worldview vs another it's natural for them to clash...allow the hate and ugliest of our race to flourish, it's almost artistic. I SAY LET NATURE TAKE IT'S COURSE, WHO IS WITH ME!!! Ok ill be quiet again.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 9, 2007 Posted July 9, 2007 exactly what SOME are looking for! currently SFN is running smoothly without any problems at all (exactly as it should be), it`s easy to Moderate, and there`s no wars going on, the Science is great, it`s just perfect. WHY would Anyone wish to bork it all up AGAIN? it`s insanity! You're making the unfounded assumption that it will bork up SFN all over again, assuming that our new plans for moderation won't work and the forum will turn back into madness. Then you ignore when I state that we'll have new ways of moderating the forums. coincidentally, if it comes back, it'll be ignorable: you can opt-out, and not see the forum on the forums index, nor the posts in the recent posts list. anything spilling out of P&R and into the main science bits will be dealt with heavily (probably by an irate YT ), so, if you want, it'd be as if P&R had never come back. which makes you wonder why some people are so against it, given that we're taking pains to make it so isolated and easy to ignore... I'm not sure just how easy it will be -- time to mess with vB again -- but at any rate what you say is possible.
insane_alien Posted July 9, 2007 Posted July 9, 2007 Then you ignore when I state that we'll have new ways of moderating the forums. you mean you've developed a way to stab people over the internet?
Phi for All Posted July 9, 2007 Posted July 9, 2007 It's a secret.But it's based on voodoo, which is a form of religion, so none of you lot will ever see it coming.
Royston Posted July 10, 2007 Posted July 10, 2007 coincidentally, if it comes back, it'll be ignorable: you can opt-out, and not see the forum on the forums index, nor the posts in the recent posts list. anything spilling out of P&R and into the main science bits will be dealt with heavily (probably by an irate YT ), so, if you want, it'd be as if P&R had never come back. Right, sorry I must of missed this when it was mentioned. See bold...this was one of my concerns, as well as vice versa...using science to refute certain belief systems, that are clearly outside of science. which makes you wonder why some people are so against it, given that we're taking pains to make it so isolated and easy to ignore... As I said, I didn't realize you were revamping the moderation or isolating the section...so GOOD LUCK ! But personally I'm going to opt out. It's a real shame the 'philosophy of science' lost momentum as some of the subjects were very interesting, and no mention of religion...which is one of those subjects you don't bring to the dinner table, as well as, I discovered a while ago...chimpanzees I'm personally against it, because I got fed up with saying 'but science has nothing to say on the matter', ' but that's completely up for interpretation', 'but that's outside science.' I hope for the sake of this site, the same tired arguments don't keep cropping up, which they might not, but I'm rather tired of debating the subject of religion...it's a tricky subject to debate, and kudos if you guys can pull it off.
ydoaPs Posted July 29, 2007 Posted July 29, 2007 What's the current news? As of right now, is it a go or no go?
pioneer Posted July 31, 2007 Posted July 31, 2007 Religion can be discussed in a scientific way if we include it as part of the evolution of the human mind. The body still has traces from our evolutionary past, such as wisdom teeth which don't always drop. Religion is very old and was part of the mental exercise that appeared with the rise of civilization all the way to the past hundred years or so. It was the wisdom teeth of the ancient mind. Nowadays, these religious wisdom teeth come in for many people, but not for all. Many go to the social dentist of pop philosophy to get them yanked to circumvent potential problems according to temporal wisdom without much history. One has to consider that anything repetitively used by the human mind over thousands of years is bound to have so type of permanent impact on the human psyche that can not be erased in a couple of generations. Whatever impact it had will probably just find another outlet. Maybe the fascination with celebrities is an unconscious substitute. Other affects can be projections such as the belief in UFO's or a source of higher being analogous to tech-angels with anti-gravity wings. There may even be a rehash of religion into other forms of knowledge. For example, physics postulates other dimensions between our 4-dimensions. This is just spiritual rehash, which has been around thousands of years. After pulling their wisdom teeth, many forget to give credit where credit is due. There is a saying that fanaticism compensates doubt. This is a two edge sword that works both for or against something one fixated on. Someone who is hell bent on the descruction of religion is trying to fight their own sense of inner doubt. Maybe their yanked wisdom teeth left behind roots. It won't be easy to remove thousands of years of religious repetititon in one lifetime. One won't be able to change their ancient body except with artifical aids. One can see the affect of steroids. Maybe spirtual steroids may have a long term negative impact on the health of the mind.
Reaper Posted August 1, 2007 Posted August 1, 2007 I just looked at the Philosophy and Religion forum that is now in the archives, and I have to say that most of the subjects are reasonable. In my personal opinion, I think there should be one here on this site, not separate from it. Other science sites I've visited have one and there really isn't much of a problem. A lot of principles in philosophical thought do have relevance to science (it is, after all, an attempt to obtain and understand what Truth is ). It helps get the mind thinking, especially when attempting to debate differing philosophical theories and concepts. And, contrary to what most people here seem to believe, you do have to have credible sources when the situation, statement, or argument demands one. Religious debates also get the mind going, and it may help to open up people who would otherwise be stubborn about the issue. Looking at the threads, I would say that most people are fairly reasonable and should be able to act maturely around such subjects, unless you have different data that proves otherwise. --------------------------------------------------- If you are really only worried about moderation issues, I don't think that should be much of a problem. If anybody uses logical fallacies or fails to cite sources just point them out, like you do on any other subforum or topic of discussion. And I'm sure we all can recognize when someone makes a thread that clearly bashes religion or to troll. And if the attitudes spill over to the other forums, just do what you guys normally do when you deal with trolling or flaming. Most of us here should be mature in theory and keep the use of logical fallacies to a minimum, and if not, a form of "natural selection" can weed out the immature people and trolls . I'd say that most people do want one back in this site, given the hot topics I've seen on the General Forum recently.
Recommended Posts