A New Faith and Science Forum

[swansont]

The problem with a moderation queue is the burden it places on the moderators, and the problem of the bias of the moderators making the decision.

 

We have a hard enough time with incivility in discussing politics. Religion is more problematic.

[ydoaPs]

The problem with a moderation queue is the burden it places on the moderators, and the problem of the bias of the moderators making the decision.

 

We have a hard enough time with incivility in discussing politics. Religion is more problematic.

 

QFT

 

That's what I was trying to say in my first couple of posts in this thread.

[liarliarpof]

Consider the physiological process of conscious thought. At one extreme there is the classic 'Fight or Flight' decision. A life or death choice to be made within seconds. Neurons firing off amok! At the other end we observe 'speaking in tongues'. The subject is merely a conduit for God's manipulations. No thinking involved, otherwise the concept is self-negating. First example-low entropy. Second example-high entropy. Consequently, unless the human element is removed, religion is a natural outcome of the 2nd Law. {NOTE: Liturgical activities lie somewhere in between.}

[ydoaPs]

The problem with a moderation queue is the burden it places on the moderators, and the problem of the bias of the moderators making the decision.

 

We have a hard enough time with incivility in discussing politics. Religion is more problematic.

 

You could always make that ydoaPs guy a moderator

 

Consider the physiological process of conscious thought. At one extreme there is the classic 'Fight or Flight' decision. A life or death choice to be made within seconds. Neurons firing off amok! At the other end we observe 'speaking in tongues'. The subject is merely a conduit for God's manipulations. No thinking involved, otherwise the concept is self-negating. First example-low entropy. Second example-high entropy. Consequently, unless the human element is removed, religion is a natural outcome of the 2nd Law. {NOTE: Liturgical activities lie somewhere in between.}

 

o.O

[A Tripolation]

Consider the physiological process of conscious thought. At one extreme there is the classic 'Fight or Flight' decision. A life or death choice to be made within seconds. Neurons firing off amok! At the other end we observe 'speaking in tongues'. The subject is merely a conduit for God's manipulations. No thinking involved, otherwise the concept is self-negating. First example-low entropy. Second example-high entropy. Consequently, unless the human element is removed, religion is a natural outcome of the 2nd Law. {NOTE: Liturgical activities lie somewhere in between.}

 

*facepalm*

 

You're really not helping the team you're thinking you're helping.

[ydoaPs]

*facepalm*

 

You're really not helping the team you're thinking you're helping.

 

Or maybe he is helping the team he thinks he's helping but you think he thinks he's helping the team that he's not helping. Savvy?

[swansont]

You could always make that ydoaPs guy a moderator

 

Catch-22.

[ydoaPs]

 

Sports references have no place in a science forum!

[Phi for All]

 

Sports references have no place in a science forum!

I think it's more of a farm reference. Have you ever not grown alfalfa?

[Spyman]

Catch-22 is a satirical, historical novel by the American author Joseph Heller, first published in 1961.

 

Among other things, Catch-22 is a general critique of bureaucratic operation and reasoning. Resulting from its specific use in the book, the phrase "Catch-22" is common idiomatic usage meaning "a no-win situation" or "a double bind" of any type.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22

[iNow]

Catch-22... Will penicillin help with that?

[A Tripolation]

I think it's more of a farm reference. Have you ever not grown alfalfa?

 

lol, what?

[Phi for All]

lol, what?

It's a government thing, a major secret. A Major Major Major Major secret.

[swansont]

It's a government thing, a major secret. A Major Major Major Major secret.

 

None of that, ___ for All, or I'll poison your sweet potatoes.

 

The specific reference in the novel (set in WWII at an airbase) is that to be grounded, you needed to request it. The only condition that would permit grounding was to be crazy, but if you wanted to be grounded, you weren't crazy. It's later expanded to be a more all-encompassing "you can't win" type of maxim. It's a great piece of satire. I recommend reading it.

 

Applied here, it's this: anyone who seeks to be a moderator is not qualified to be a moderator. It's a version of the idea that people who actively seek power and control are not to be trusted with it. The more they want it, the less you should trust them.

 

 

I didn't mean to hijack the discussion with this. Oh well, what the hell.

[Phi for All]

None of that, ___ for All, or I'll poison your sweet potatoes.

Do all physicists make Snark-y references?

 

What if we resurrect the Religion forum and make it where you have to ask for permission to post in it, and no one with an agenda will be allowed. So if you ask for permission, you obviously have an agenda, so....

[A Tripolation]

I didn't mean to hijack the discussion with this. Oh well, what the hell.

 

Well you damn mods can do whatever you want, so it doesn't matter does it?

 

And thanks for explaining...I really thought Phi For All was being literal.

[Phi for All]

nd thanks for explaining...I really thought Phi For All was being literal.

No, I was being literary. In Catch-22, there is a character with the last name Major, whose father gave him the first and middle names Major Major. The father was an alfalfa farmer who was paid not to grow crops, and who promptly got up every day at noon to make sure the chores weren't done. He used his government subsidies to buy more land to not grow alfalfa on.

 

When the son went into the army, a computer glitch promoted him from Private to Major, so he became Major Major Major Major. As swansont said, Catch-22 is a great satire and you should give it a read.

[A Tripolation]

I plan on it Phi For All. I'm ashamed I haven't, I thought myself to be quite well-versed in literature.

[swansont]

Do all physicists make Snark-y references?

 

Some make anti-snark-y references, and that can get quite messy when they annihilate.

 

What if we resurrect the Religion forum and make it where you have to ask for permission to post in it, and no one with an agenda will be allowed. So if you ask for permission, you obviously have an agenda, so....

 

Perfect. And it makes all this discussion on-topic.

[Phi for All]

Some make anti-snark-y references, and that can get quite messy when they annihilate.

Pft. I was expecting some of that God-like rep power for my triple entendre.

 

But now that I've mentioned it, you can't give it. It's one of those whatchamacallits....

[zule]

Why bothering so much about religion?

Edited November 7, 2009 by zule

[Genecks]

We've created various philosophy/religion boards, and we've tried keeping them established. However, here are my views:

 

1. We should keep them around.

Yes, it'd be an excellent idea to continue philosophical discussions about science and what it "is."

 

2. We should stop moderating them or taking them too serious

 

Yeah, I think that would be the best way to keep them around. Perhaps a disclaimer: "You are entering the unstable/argumentative part of SFN. Be warned that opinions and views may not be on part of SFN or the aggregate of SFN. Caution is advised."

 

Leave it like that, and let people bicker, argue, discuss, discover, etc. on their own.

[Baby Astronaut]

If no one tried to make unsupported claims or dismissive remarks, I think a faith subforum discussion area could work.

 

If it is true, then yes. Surely there would be mention of someone's dead loved one walking the Earth. Or perhaps there'd be some empty graves of people who died before then.

 

Perhaps there would be a Roman record of the trial and/or capital punishment.

 

While you cannot directly measure it being false by absence of these things, the presence of these things would be scientifically measurable.

 

However, there are times where an absence of evidence can be supporting evidence.

 

For instance: Matthew mentions Herod massacring all the infants of the area. Provided it is true, there could be several things to provide evidence such as historical accounts or an unusual spike in infant graves in the area at the time.

What if the bibles just mixed in sprinkles of real history with its stories?

 

The problem anyway is that finding circumstantial/supporting evidence for one biblical description isn't whatsoever proof for the other biblical descriptions.

 

 

Catch-22... Will penicillin help with that?

 

It's later expanded to be a more all-encompassing "you can't win" type of maxim.

I thought catch-22 meant the "solution" was in reality just an instant shortcut back to the problem.

 

Edit: or that a feedback loop's created either between a problem and its solution, or between two problems.

Edited November 8, 2009 by Baby Astronaut

[JillSwift]

If no one tried to make unsupported claims or dismissive remarks, I think a faith subforum discussion area could work.

Given the nature of faith¹, it would be a very quiet subforum.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

¹ Belief without evidence or despite contrary evidence.

[Baby Astronaut]

¹ Belief without evidence or despite contrary evidence.

That's just it. Personal belief can be labeled as such, thus wouldn't be a claim, just a belief specific to that person's reckonings.