Reaper Posted May 15, 2008 Posted May 15, 2008 I know it's been a while, but have you guys come up with a verdict yet on whether there should be one or not?
doG Posted May 15, 2008 Author Posted May 15, 2008 I think an extra "you must agree to abide by these rules" type of agreement before being allowed to post there would be better than just a sticky. That way no one can complain that they didn't know. More the reason for it to be a forum limited to such members, one requiring an additional group membership in addition to the membership to the forums in general. Members that don't abide can be expelled from that individual forum for violating the rules.
iNow Posted February 1, 2009 Posted February 1, 2009 Can anyone on the staff please clarify for me the current stance on religion and god-related discussion at SFN? I am very confused, and really unsure of where I stand in posting on these issues. There have been a lot of god-related threads lately, and I'd like to request that you either close them all down or explicitly acknowledge here that it's okay for me to begin arguing with people on their stances, definitions, reasons for belief, and to challenge their faiths and assumptions. I've worked very hard to muzzle myself on these topics, but new ones keep popping up and I need to know where we all stand in relation to the rules of this site before continuing. Thanks.
iNow Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 Yeah, I kinda figured that. Thanks for confirming though. I imagine that the crew has been discussing this (at least indirectly) for a while now. I recall the thread on use of the term "Evolutionist" getting out of hand, and that one having to be closed. I also recall things hitting the borderline/pushing the envelop when I argued against Prop 8 and other discriminatory practices against homosexuality. It always seemed to be the religious who had a problem. There is a lot of pent up anger and frustration on this topic. For YEARS people who don't believe have been put down, made to feel inferior, described as lacking morals, ostracized from public groups, picked on in schools, and even beaten up for lacking belief. Add to that the glaring lack of supporting evidence on the side of those with belief, yet the simultaneous unshakability of their stance (faith based position) where logic and reason consistently fail to penetrate, you can see why things get heated so quickly. Now, we have threads on "Do you believe in God" and "which of these are gods" and all kinds of crap, and many of us are simply biting our tongues. You know that bad blood will diffuse into other forums and topics if you allow these discussions. To think otherwise is naive and viewing the issue with rose-colored glasses. We're human, and it will happen. I'm really not seeing a lot of good arguments in favor of allowing these discussions anymore, but perhaps I'm not privy to some positive points being shared in the Mod forum. I dunno. But, please. Either lock the threads or let us get into the arena and do battle so we can ultimately get past it and return to the discussions on science which brought all of us here to SFN in the first place. 1
Phi for All Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 The main problem with discussing religion here is that it's a supernatural subject being examined with methodology suited for natural subjects. Most religious claims can be debunked this way, but the core "belief" is in a deity that can't be observed. The religious blur the line by attempting to extend their faith outside the core belief, and the non-religious blur the line by attempting to extend their methodology into the core. The core belief is outside of science, until such time as God decides to become directly observable. When that happens, we'll start discussing Him. Until then, it's pointless in a science forum. We can allow a thread like "Do you believe in God", with a poll, but the answers can't be argued scientifically. It doesn't work.
doG Posted February 2, 2009 Author Posted February 2, 2009 The main problem with discussing religion here is that it's a supernatural subject... Ummmmmm....No. Some religious discussions are about alleged supernatural beings. Buddhism is one that comes to mind which involves no deities. Pantheism and Panentheism are also religions that do not involve supernatural deities. From a scientific point of view it is my opinion that religion itself is a prominent element of human cultures and any truly scientific discussion of sociology is incomplete with considering its effects on societies.
Sayonara Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 The decision was made to close the P&R forum over three years ago. I would have thought people might have gotten over it by now. It's fairly self-evident that if you want to discuss theological issues, there are much better places to do it.
Sisyphus Posted February 2, 2009 Posted February 2, 2009 It depends on the context in which it is discussed. The way I see it, religion is ok to talk about in the context of something else, e.g. as a sociological phenomenon in politics or psychology topics. Theology, as in arguing over what is "true," is against the rules, since it causes so much trouble for almost no benefit to scientifically minded discussions. I wish we could talk about it, too, since it's an interesting topic and I'm curious what the members of this forum in particular think, but we've empirically demonstrated that it's just not going to work.
Mokele Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 Massive OT discussion of religion deleted. This is for discussing the status of the current-closed forum on the subject, NOT the subject themselves. Stray again and copious OT warnings will flow.
doG Posted February 4, 2009 Author Posted February 4, 2009 Well, this is not an attempt to take the discussion off topic but it is an attempt to find out why these two questions are viewed as off topic or irrelevant to the discussion since they were deleted. Again, Are anthropology and sociology valid sciences? Is the study of anthropology or sociology complete if religion is disregarded as an element or variable in those studies? I can also see my reply to Sisyphus clarifying that religion does not necessarily mean theology was deleted and I am very puzzled as to why it is not pertinent to this discussion. I hope that deleted post is still available for review so that someone can explain how it is off topic when it was a direct, relevant reply to a post that remains.
iNow Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 (edited) Never mind. Misread the post. Edited February 4, 2009 by iNow
doG Posted February 4, 2009 Author Posted February 4, 2009 doG - Mokele came through and trimmed several posts from this thread. Instead of discussing the reinstatement of the P&R forum, many posters were using this thread to argue about religious issues directly. It was those posts being deleted to which he referred, nothing relating to the forum being removed. Sisyphus gave a warning - "Guys, that's not what this thread is for. Stop now. Knock it off." They didn't, posts were culled, and Mokele confirmed that the deletion of posts occurred and refreshed the warning. I understand very well what happened. 2 of my posts that were not part of that off topic discussion were deleted as well and I'd like to know why?
Sayonara Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 Ffs. This is a dead issue. Read the threads about the P&R forum closure and what can and can't be discussed, which were posted three years ago.
Recommended Posts