jryan Posted January 6, 2008 Posted January 6, 2008 I thought it was because there must have been a lot of bickering... but looking for a religion thread that isn't closed showed me that some times they are just closed because they are religion. Are these discussion forbidden in this non-science section under "other topics"? And why?
insane_alien Posted January 6, 2008 Posted January 6, 2008 we used to have a philosophy and religion forum, it descended into chaos regularly and without warning. they generally reduced the quality of posting and leaked over into other forums. they are now severely discouraged.
jryan Posted January 6, 2008 Author Posted January 6, 2008 we used to have a philosophy and religion forum, it descended into chaos regularly and without warning. they generally reduced the quality of posting and leaked over into other forums. they are now severely discouraged. That's a shame. It would be nice if people could discuss such things rationally... though I can see how people on both sides would have a propensity for circling the wagons and refusing to discuss the topic in an open and rational manor. I've certainly been involved in a few of those over the years. Though I bow out when tempers needlessly flare.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 6, 2008 Posted January 6, 2008 Indeed. Religious topics are closed because they're too hard to keep rational and calm.
iNow Posted January 6, 2008 Posted January 6, 2008 That's a shame. It would be nice if people could discuss such things rationally... It is a shame. Many people try, but those against religion feel superior, and those in support of religion are very sensitive regarding challenges to it. I made joke above, had the post deleted, and was infracted 15 points. It's precisely this selective interpretation that prevents open discussion of religious issues. I found I had crystallized the point that this type of discussion is not welcome here with a small joke that was non-specific and light-hearted, a staff member found that I was expressing a personal prejudice (against the specific forum policy I was actually attempting to support). Hence, it's against forum policy. Too many sensitivities, too much anger, not enough rationality. Ta may toe ta mot toe...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 6, 2008 Posted January 6, 2008 The trouble is that if you're being facetious it's rather hard to tell in all text, even with emoticons. (You could have been gloating.) Such posts have caused problems before, and so we remove them.
Taq_is_hot Posted January 10, 2008 Posted January 10, 2008 Oh trust me, I know how bad religion forums can get! I am currently a member on another board where there is a religion forum and it is extremely chaotic!! It bothers me that the mods don't do anything about it...I mean, its not just debating - its people literally biting each others heads off with insults and flaming. But I suppose the mods won't do anything since they are the ones who start half the threads that turn into chaos. In fact, the mods contribute to about 75% of the insults anyway:rolleyes: Religion and politics are touchy subjects to people. One person feels so strongly about one thing and attacks the other if he/she disagrees and that person attacks that person and so on and so on and so on...
CDarwin Posted January 11, 2008 Posted January 11, 2008 The Darwin Fish thread didn't go so well... Sorry.
DrDNA Posted January 11, 2008 Posted January 11, 2008 Am I alone in my feeling that the Darwin fish thingy was innocent and fun?
iNow Posted January 11, 2008 Posted January 11, 2008 It's a Darwin Crossopterygian. You clearly know more about ancient biology than I do, but your posts are good, and they make me smile in their accuracy.
Dak Posted January 11, 2008 Posted January 11, 2008 i think we've allready had a thread about this, but the reason, in a nutshel, is this: some religious people tend to get bitchy and flamey whenever their religion is critisized at all, in the slightest. some atheists tend to refuse to acknowledge that 'thinking that you're right' does not remove the burden of tact and common courtasy (coinsidentally, if you're not open to the posibility you're wrong, you may as well not discuss it). hence, they all ended up as 'you're a dumb christian/atheist', which drew alot of the more chilled people into the flame-fest, and it created too much moderator work and ill-feeling across the board so was closed and religious discussion banned. It is a shame. Many people try' date=' but those against religion feel superior, and [b']those in support of religion are very sensitive regarding challenges to it. I made joke above,[/b] had the post deleted, and was infracted 15 points. that joke being 'religion is stoopid'. the fact that people who know full well that people are sensitive about religion still refuse to exhibit any tact is half the problem
YT2095 Posted January 11, 2008 Posted January 11, 2008 that coupled with a load of Ignorant people that don`t seem to Realise that you CAN be a Scientist and still have a Faith! their narrow mindedness doesn`t allow them to see How this may be possible, and as a result that narrow mindedness must also effect their abilities as scientists too.
gcol Posted January 11, 2008 Posted January 11, 2008 that coupled with a load of Ignorant people that don`t seem to Realise that you CAN be a Scientist and still have a Faith! their narrow mindedness doesn`t allow them to see How this may be possible, and as a result that narrow mindedness must also effect their abilities as scientists too. That is a prime example of why we get nowhere, and where mods themselves contribute to the problem. Anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant and narrow-minded. Of course, how dare anyone disagree.
Severian Posted January 11, 2008 Posted January 11, 2008 TAnyone who disagrees with you is ignorant and narrow-minded. Of course, how dare anyone disagree. Well, it is obvious that people who disagree with me are ignorant, since they do not know the correct facts (and I am always right). They are only "narrow-minded" if they refuse to accept that they are ignorant.
YT2095 Posted January 11, 2008 Posted January 11, 2008 That is a prime example of why we get nowhere, and where mods themselves contribute to the problem. perhaps then you`d care to show Where my statement is wrong? I KNOW I can show you Where and Why it`s right!
gcol Posted January 11, 2008 Posted January 11, 2008 Ah, deep sigh.....you are all so right. And I, being a paragon of moral rectitude and blessed with divine revelation, am also indisputably right. I hereby solemnly declare, from my morally superior viewpoint, that as a gesture of reconcilliation I shall abjure from from using the troublesome R******* word, and substitute Belief System. If anyone takes offense at that, I shall know where you are coming from..... Go on, please give me some more infraction points..... I regard them as a badge of courage, the same as my reaction, and that of my peers, to getting six-of-the-best, on the arse, with the cane, at school. No, I won't show the scars.
YT2095 Posted January 11, 2008 Posted January 11, 2008 No... I didn`t think you could respond reasonably either, I rest my case.
gcol Posted January 11, 2008 Posted January 11, 2008 Why is it that the street named "sweet resonableness" always has a a one-way sign, and I of course am the only traveller who obeys it. (in my opinion, according to my beliefs).
YT2095 Posted January 11, 2008 Posted January 11, 2008 That is a prime example of why we get nowhere, and where mods themselves contribute to the problem. Anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant and narrow-minded. Of course, how dare anyone disagree. oh yes, I can how Very "reasonable" and well thought out That was!
DrDNA Posted January 11, 2008 Posted January 11, 2008 I wish we had just one thread where we could discuss religion and everything must remain inside that room. It could be kind of like the Airing of Grievances during Festivus.
CDarwin Posted January 11, 2008 Posted January 11, 2008 perhaps then you`d care to show Where my statement is wrong? I KNOW I can show you Where and Why it`s right! Well, one could make the case that science requires at least a working assumption of philosophical naturalism which is it odds with the supernaturalism that tends to define religious belief, and that it is hypocritical not to apply naturalism universally if you apply it practically. I'm not saying that's a good argument, but it's one that's not necessarily ignorant or close-minded. I don't want to start an illicit religious discussion, just demonstrate that a reasoned one is at least theoretically possible.
YT2095 Posted January 11, 2008 Posted January 11, 2008 It doesn`t have to be at odds with anything though, at least not in the way I view it, there simply IS NO conflict. now, Yes I Completely! agree with you when it comes to Y.E.Cs, there is indeed nothing BUT conflict there, but Not all Christians are YEC`s!!!! and THAT is what some utterly Fail to realise. One is just a SUBSET, Not the whole and that is Ignorant, and to Argue from that point without Listening is Narrow Minded. and a Prerequisite of Any good Scientist is having an Open mind!
Severian Posted January 11, 2008 Posted January 11, 2008 Well, one could make the case that science requires at least a working assumption of philosophical naturalism which is it odds with the supernaturalism that tends to define religious belief, and that it is hypocritical not to apply naturalism universally if you apply it practically. That's not true. At best, science requires only the assumption of "philosophical naturalism" for the observables you are testing. It requires no assumption of "philosophical naturalism" for all of reality. Since most religious people are happy to admit the working and application of physical law to the majority of their local observations, I see no contradiction. Indeed, it would be an unproven assertion (i.e. a "belief") to apply naturalism universally, which one might reason was in contradiction with philosophy of science itself.
Recommended Posts