Sub Forum name change

[(In)Sanity]

I have changed the name of this sub forum. I hope it helps to clarify that this is not a place to preach the so called word of God any longer. Feel free to argue about who was alive when and what events took place that created a certain writing, or what parable was derived from what story, etc. Do not however expect that just saying something is true because someone wrote that God said it is will suffice. This is a science forum, this is not a place to help spread religion or faith. Religion has a massive history and foundation that people claim is based on actual events. I would suggest using actual evidence to support your claims going forward.

The nominate a moderator thread has been archived. That's my way of saying it's no longer visible here.

[Paleoichneum]

Well done IS the change was needed and I ope this makes things easier for MM from here on out.

[archaeologist]

typical of atheists who claim that christians have a closed mind and narrow view ppoint. you have just proved those accusations wrong and shown that you are what you accuse others of being.

[archaeologist]

MM gets undermined again and shown that his bosses have no confidence in him to handle the responsibilities of the origianl forum.

[Paleoichneum]

typical of atheists who claim that Christians have a closed mind and narrow view point. you have just proved those accusations wrong and shown that you are what you accuse others of being.

Out of morbid curiosity where in my or IS posts were ANY accusations or references to ANY specific religions made???

[archaeologist]

I would suggest using actual evidence to support your claims going forward.

says the man who cannot provide one shred of evidence for his dissent (nor can any other member of this board). belief in science or evolution is NOT evidence against the Bible, it is merely an alternative based upon conjecture and assumption, neither of which would be allowed in a court of law let alone in anything credible.

being allowed in the laboratory does not legitimize the two methods, nor makes their findings an authority. but it does show how far people will go to avoid the Bible and come to grips with the reality of life. they hide in their disbelief hoping beyond hope tht what the Bible says won't be true, yet ignore the fact that not one scientific nor archaeological discovery has proven the Bible false.

they also hide behind the mantra of 'give us evidence' yet dismiss any and all evidence presented while failing to provide one shred of absolute proof for their position.

this is exampled by the change made to this forum. those who advocate and support this change, only fool themselves.

[verzen]

Nothing has proven the bible REAL either.. and thats what counts. It doesnt matter what if we try to prove the bible wrong because we dont NEED to prove the bible wrong. YOU need to provide evidence that the bible is accurate. The entire reason for the change is to say that you must provide evidence for your claims that something is legit. You can't just say, "The bible is Gods word. You must listen to it. End of Story."

[drowsy turtle]

they also hide behind the mantra of 'give us evidence' yet dismiss any and all evidence presented while failing to provide one shred of absolute proof for their position.

Is that why you have not provided any?

[dejawolf]

I would suggest using actual evidence to support your claims going forward.

they also hide behind the mantra of 'give us evidence' yet dismiss any and all evidence presented while failing to provide one shred of absolute proof for their position.

you're the perfect hypocrite.

[mitchellmckain]

Ok, my take on this so far is that what this means for the most part is that the value of scientific inquiry is not up for discussion even in the religion section. So that, as in all the usual scientific sections it is to be expected that the consensus of the scientific community is at least afforded the respect involved in taking the time and effort to understand that consensus and the reasons for it. That is a reasonable expectation for discussion in something calling itself a science forum.

Also I think it is clear that there is now also some expectation that participants will not be demanding that their opinions be accepted by everyone as fact without some objective evidence to back it up. Scriptures can be used for purposes of illustration and or explanation (on both sides since there is considerable content there for the embarassment of the religious), BUT these cannot be construed as proof for anything but the historical beliefs and/or traditions of those who believe or have believed in the truth of those scriptures.

[daytonturner]

As I said in a pm to one of the mods:

Poetically speaking, science-religion discussion by any other name is still science-religion discussion. (Apologies to Willie Shakespeare who would receive no quarter here, either.)

Basically, this sub forum has never been a scientific study but a contrast between pure science as a world view and religion(s) as a world view. I think it has always been sort of a religious view of science vs. the science view of religion. I don't know that there is a "perfect" name for this discussion, but it is better to have this separate sub-forum where we can discuss these things on this level rather than having us religious nuts invading the actual scientific threads where, by the way, there are often anti-religious pot shots taken.

I don't think the new title actually capture the flavor of this sub-forum either and I have no idea how you can take the religion out of a discussion focused on religion. Sort of like trying to take Euclidean geometry out of a discussion on non-Euclidean geometry. You need the two in order to have the discussion.

I think the discussions we carry on here are important because they do not end here. I know the scientificos go to their friends and says, "That idiot religious fanatic said blah, blah, blah," just like we go to our friends and say the same thing.

But I also think there is a misconception of the scientistics here that all religious people are "against" science whatever that would mean. With rare exceptions, I see few religious objections to much other than a Godless creation and some aspects of evolution. It is pretty hard for anyone who knows anything to argue against Relativity or rocket science. Quantum theory and String theory are hardly well enough developed or defined to spawn any sort of religious objection. Also, I am completely amazed at the total lack of knowledge on the part of many science posters as to what the religions (specifically Chritianity) actually believe and make an effort to try to clarify that.

On that, I can only say I was pleased with the recent PBS study on parallel universes feature Mark Elliott, the son of Hugh Elliott who was an early commentator on Quantum. Mark Elliott is the leader of the music group The Eels whose music I have always found odd but interesting -- sort of like today's adaption of Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention from my era.

My reason for being here is partially to attempt to evangelize but also to try to get scientistics to understand that there are other aspects of life beyond science and the search for more and more knowledge. Knowledge without direction can be more dangerous than direction without knowledge.

[Lynx_Fox]

I don't think the new title actually capture the flavor of this sub-forum either and I have no idea how you can take the religion out of a discussion focused on religion. Sort of like trying to take Euclidean geometry out of a discussion on non-Euclidean geometry. You need the two in order to have the discussion.

I don't think the intent is to completely remove religion or its beliefs. What it does, is weigh those the stories, scriptures, oral traditions and other parts of the religion by a scientific standard alongside other evidence from archeology, different cultural traditions etc.

[Arcane_Mathematician]

I think, the sole purpose of this, is to cut down on the preachy posts made by a few people here (not just arch, but a lot of other trolls that pop in and have their say and bail)

[daytonturner]

Lynx-Fox said:

I don't think the intent is to completely remove religion or its beliefs. What it does, is weigh those the stories, scriptures, oral traditions and other parts of the religion by a scientific standard alongside other evidence from archeology, different cultural traditions etc.

Well, my contention is that you cannot measure religion by any scientific standard any more than you can measure philosophy by a scientific standard. Can you measure a poem by a scientific standard? Can you explain love in scientific terms?

You can look at, say, the Bible and attempt to show that it is historically or geographically incorrect but how can science argue with a tenet such as "Love your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind and love your neighbors as much as you love yourself?"

And even then, if you find an historical anomaly, what impact does that have on the Bible as a whole? If you can show that Jesus was crucified in Timbuktu instead of Jerusalem that would be significant. If you can show that battles did not take place in the chronological order as presented in the Bible, does that prove God does not exist?

Probably the most objectionable aspect of the "scientific" study of religion as presented here has been that it is not scientific at all. Seldom to I see any citations to scholarly works on authenticity of scripture; or to archeological findings which discredit the Bible; or an understanding of the differences between ancient cultures and todays' cultures.

If the discussions were actually presenting scientific evidence to discredit the Bible or religious practices of today, there would be little to discuss.

There is no scientific evidence which says abortion is a better alternative than birth. There is no scientific study which proves that homosexual relationships are a better lifestyle than heterosexual relationships.

The scientifics claims morality is a product of human experience but turns around and denies the validity of religious experience.

If it were really a scientific study, I would not object at all, because I am convinced the answer would always end up YHWH. But the discussion always boils down to God exists vs. Why I Don't Want God to Exist. There is nothing scientific about that discussion.

[Arcane_Mathematician]

Well, my contention is that you cannot measure religion by any scientific standard any more than you can measure philosophy by a scientific standard. Can you measure a poem by a scientific standard? Can you explain love in scientific terms?

Just being a little nit-picky, Philosophy is the study of knowledge and thought, of which science is a tenement. Without philosophy there would be no science at all, seeing as how philosophy is the birth of the modern scientific method.

[archaeologist]

I am going to be gone for the day as I want to construct a special post for a new topic of discussion and it will take time to do that.

it will be along the lines of the new format so do not worry and hopefully it will allow for intelligent discussion.

i look forward to intelligent and honest replies to my previous posts made this morning.

[tritai]

Well done IS the change was needed and I ope this makes things easier for MM from here on out.

Yeah, thanks, IS. I expect that maybe this change will clear things up a bit for poor MM. Boy, I would hate to have his job.... :?

[daytonturner]

arcane said:

Just being a little nit-picky, Philosophy is the study of knowledge and thought, of which science is a tenement. Without philosophy there would be no science at all, seeing as how philosophy is the birth of the modern scientific method.

I would not particularly argue with that. My point would be that it is easier to filter science through a philosophical matrix than it is to filter philosophy through a scientific matrix. And the same would be true of religion.

[Scifor Refugee]

Can you explain love in scientific terms?

What do you mean by "explain" love? Scientists can give you a description of what is chemically/physically happening in a person's brain to make them experience the sensation of being in love, and understand love's effects on the brain well enough to be able to tell if someone is in love with someone else by monitoring their brains with MRI. An evolutionary biologist could probably explain why our brains are evolved to be able to experience love.

Or were you talking about a subjective description of the sensation of being in love? In that case, a scientist would probably just interview a lot of people to collect 'data' about how people feel when they are in love.

[Quantime]

Brilliant idea, absolutley fantastic :-D

Now I can't call you a hypocrite when you complain about people preaching religion in a religion sub forum on a science forum :P

[Obviously]

I thought about the religion section becoming a "scientific study of religion" once, but then I realized that that would basically just be history or behavioural study which would make the new "scientific study of religion" useless.

I think the religion section should keep the job it has always had; to attract religious fanatics away from the scientific parts of the forum like insects attracted to a bright light. It gathers all the tiresome flaming and rhetoric to one section in stead of spreading it around the forum. Of course it's debateble if this is indeed the way the religion section has worked thus far, but surely it might also be considered a holding ground for people of ignorance to hopefully be one day enlightened and welcomed to the wonderous world of science. The psuedoscience section of the forum works in much the same way as the religion section I presume, but it is more of a holding cell for people of crazy and outlandish theories than a haven which attracts zealots who spout nonsense of life and death.

Recent events have been tedious to say the least. Though it is more than obvious that archaeologist has influenced most of you more than you've perhaps realized.

[Quantime]

You made my day Obviously ^^. Let me buy you a drink when you reach my stop, or if I reach yours

[archaeologist]

if you are going to do a 'scientific' study of religion why are you quoting someone else who only talks about existing religious thought? some questions:

1. what are your parameters to guide your study? or is this just going to be another bash of christians via another means?

2. where is your control group?

3. what specifically are you studying? religion is a big field and covers large ground, how will you limit the study to maximize the benefits?

4. are the parameters going to be arbitrary?

5. will this be objective or biased?

6. what factors will be used to properly make divisions in the field of religion so it can be studied honestly and objectively?

7. what weight will you give each religion's written holy words?

8. what weight will you give the Bible? or will you just be hypocritical and use a manipulated double standard/

9. what will keep you all honest?

to have a forum and a thread called the scientific study of religion yet do not have controls in place, or guidelines to keep the direction you want and if you do not have something with which to compare then you are just wasting everyone's time and achieving nothing.

all you are doing is just rubber stamoing your own false beliefs and show you refuse to deal with the truth. Christianity and God are not subject to scientific rules thus how are you going to honestly obtain the data you need to make a honest conclusion?

what i see going to happen is that you will declare a pre-determined supposition as true and that supposition will bre along the lines of your bias held right now.

what standards will be used to guarentee your honesty and objectivity in this study?

you say you want to be scientific yet you have not done one thing scientifically yet. all that ha sbeen done is posted someone else's words and others pat the op on the back for regurgitation.

[SkinWalker]

if you are going to do a 'scientific' study of religion why are you quoting someone else who only talks about existing religious thought? some questions:

Please discontinue the trolling. You've made it abundantly clear that you're dissatisfied that unfettered discourse about religion or discussion of religion from the point of view of science is not something you like.

You're post above implies that this subforum is about the act of conducting studies rather than engaging in discourse about scientific study of religion, and it represents a failure of thought on your part. Further posts of this nature will be considered trolling.

[archaeologist]

i posted what i did so there would be actual guidelines ffrom the powers that be so posters like myself know how we are to frame our posts. yous and insanity's omittance of such shows you just want to be able to get rid of people lik eme easier and have no concern for an actual scinetific study of religion as suggested by the forum change and title.

as it stands now the forum and the thread of the same name are too generic and broad giving to much leeway to the powers that be to delete or move dissenting posts for no legitimate reason other than their own personal bias and hatred.

[SkinWalker]

Tentatively, posts and threads in this forum should be written that do not assume an a priori existence of the supernatural or paranormal. Posts and threads should be focused on one or more of the following:

• The scientific examination and study of religion and religious thought from perspectives such as anthropology, archaeology, psychology, sociology, neurology, etc.
• Discussion of the intersection of science and religion, specifically the affect one might have on the other, but not from the point of view that includes an a priori assumption of the supernatural or the paranormal.
• Discussion on the benefits of spirituality on society or the individual from a social or health benefit angle, provided that the discussion is scientific, reasoned, and does not include an a priori assumption of the supernatural and paranormal.

What is considered off-topic in this forum are threads and posts of the following nature:

• Those that proselytize, evangelize, or otherwise pronounce the benefits of religious superstition over that of secular life including science. There are innumerable religious forums on the internet to visit for this.
• Those that are anti-science with the intent to troll/bait members of a science board.
• Proclamations that the Bible, Quran, [insert religious doctrine] already reveals modern scientific achievements, etc.
• Those that seek to hypothesize the qualities of a god (all-powerful; all-knowing; etc.) -there's a philosophy forum for such discussions as thought experiments.
• Those posts/threads that seek only to ridicule or belittle religion or the religious.

Some of these in the two categories above will require judgment by the staff. It's understandable that some members will hold religious belief and find it hard to discuss religious topics without expressing that belief. Its also understood that since religion very often affects scientific endeavors that criticism will result. In those cases the moderator(s) will use judgment in deciding the extent to which the posts/threads are relevant or over the top.

Like I said in the opening line: this is all tentative -pending input by (In)Sanity and the other staff, particularly Mitchell.

[archaeologist]

Tentatively, posts and threads in this forum should be written that do not assume an a priori existence of the supernatural or paranormal

since science fails to prove evolution exists or is actualy responsible for what we have in life this comment above shows that those who support science are willing to ignore their own rules.

definition of a priori: using facts and principles that are known to be true in order to decide what the probable effects or results of something will be.

fits evolutionists and evolution more than it does God and christians.

#1The scientific examination and study of religion and religious thought from perspectives such as anthropology, archaeology, psychology, sociology, neurology, etc.

#2 Discussion of the intersection of science and religion, specifically the affect one might have on the other, but not from the point of view that includes an a priori assumption of the supernatural or the paranormal.

#3 Discussion on the benefits of spirituality on society or the individual from a social or health benefit angle, provided that the discussion is scientific, reasoned, and does not include an a priori assumption of the supernatural and paranormal.

#1 yet nothing frm the subject being studied which would supply the necessry missing data needed to draw the right conclusions. these are all outside observers who do not have a clear view nor understanding of religion or christianity and they are trying to pass judgment or draw conclusions without benefit of experience.

all the above are very limited fields which leaves too much to conjecture, hypothesis and opinion not fact.

#2 yet the focus of the religion or christianity needs to be considered in existence in some form or their is no religion or christianity to study.

#3. this is not scientific but leads one to 'preaching' from both sides of the arguement.

these guidlines are just bull crap and prove me right that those who side with the secular viewpoints are just the blind leading the blind as the try to bring religion and christianity down to their own bias. those who do not believe in God or buddha are saying you can only study your own faith if you do it our way andon our level--unbelief.

this is not a scientific study but a gross manipulation to render the discussion harmless to the unbeliever. nothing can be accomplished here withthese outlandish, unrealistic and ridiculous guidelines.

i won't even go into the other half ogf the post as it is more of the same and seeks to stifle any intelligent discussion and ensure thatthe unbeliever gets what they want--justification and excuses for their sinful lives and wrong choice.

[(In)Sanity]

I just realized something and would to get an answer to the question. What in the world is archaeologist even doing here at all? No really, he has zero interest in science or trying to achieve any type of answer. He simply wants to prove everyone else here wrong by preaching his faith. He wants us to believe that we are all idiots because we don't just blindly agree with his words.

I grow tired of it. If needed I'll shut down this entire sub forum and perhaps find another more interesting topic to replace it with. I actually suspect that's archaeologist's goal in life, to stop all this blasphemy from spreading as he may see it.

I know and have known people of all walks of life and religious beliefs. I've remained friends with those who do not preach to me about what I'm doing wrong with my choices in life, those that insist on forcing their beliefs on me are not worthy of my time. I've corrected people who said incorrect things against Muslims after 911, I've done my best to educate people that everyone is entitled to their views and ideas and that just because a few people in a group do wrong things doesn't make the entire group bad.

It is said that God gave us free will, other men trying to control us and make us conform to their beliefs is taking away our free will. Being here is a choice, it's not forced upon anyone. For those who want to discuss actual science it becomes difficult however when certain members are constantly preaching their faith as answers. Your faith is not an answer, it's an opinion that you feel strongly about. It has no place here unless it's in direct response to someone asking why do you do a certain thing or why is it that you think that way.

This is also not a Christian Study, this is a study of all religions.

I will not sit idly by while a few people try to make this sub forum their own personal Church. For those who insist on answering questions by simply using references to your faith, find a new home. If the reference is directly and accurately responding to a specific question about ones faith, you may be answering correctly. If your answer is stating that someone is wrong because your faith says otherwise, that's not an answer at all..it's an opinion. If you don't understand what I'm trying to say, read it again and ask questions.

Do not make claims of persecution when your answers are being outright rejected because they are just opinions and not answers. Do not complain that your posts are being moved to the trash because they don't conform to this sub forums basic ideas. This is not a job placement, a place to live or a scholarship. This is my forum and I am well in my rights to kick anyone out at any time for any reason at all. That being said I rarely do unless they leave me no other choice.

Play by the rules or leave. If you don't understand the rules stop posting in this section until you are 100% clear on them. Providing opinions as answers will without a doubt get you kicked off. This is a science forum, this is NOT a place to preach. If you want to discuss how your feeling today, post it in the trash can.

[Absum!]

LOL

(In)sanity I loike it!

Perhaps you should now have a section to divert the preachers and loonies, where they can argue such nonsense as right and wrong concerning religion and my God is better than yours etc or shout 'I'm an Atheist/Christian/Muslim/Jew etc etc up yours!'
to keep the clutter down and just for the heck of it?

I mean it could be a place then we can all visit occasionally just to have a laugh and remind us what life is really all about and how not to go about it?

[(In)Sanity]

LOL

(In)sanity I loike it!

Perhaps you should now have a section to divert the preachers and loonies, where they can argue such nonsense as right and wrong concerning religion and my God is better than yours etc or shout 'I'm an Atheist/Christian/Muslim/Jew etc etc up yours!'
to keep the clutter down and just for the heck of it?

I mean it could be a place then we can all visit occasionally just to have a laugh and remind us what life is really all about and how not to go about it?

I actually wouldn't mind having such a place, the problem is everyone just starts whining about other members and it ends up overloading the administration with BS complaints. If you walk in to a biker bar dressed in drag and get your ass kicked, who's fault is it ?

[mitchellmckain]

Like I said in the opening line: this is all tentative -pending input by (In)Sanity and the other staff, particularly Mitchell.

I shall provide my input on this, then.

Tentatively, posts and threads in this forum should be written that do not assume an a priori existence of the supernatural or paranormal.

It is quite right that posts addressed to everyone in a science forum should not assume things that are clearly in dispute and so challenges for the presentation of objective evidence should be expected. Since such challenges for objective evidence on the question of the existence of God have never been met by anyone in millenia, I think we can just skip ahead to the assumption that no such evidence will be forthcoming and thus expecting others accept the truth of this just because you believe it, is unreasonable.

However, I do hope that this will not be so strictly enforced that discussions between those that do share certain premises will be prohibited. I concede, however that in such cases, those that do so should show some sensitivity to the fact that others that may be reading will likely not share these premises and thus they should expect challenges to which they can respond with a high level of courtesy. You cannot expect a private conversation unless you do so in private with personal messages.

Posts and threads should be focused on one or more of the following:

• The scientific examination and study of religion and religious thought from perspectives such as anthropology, archaeology, psychology, sociology, neurology, etc.
• Discussion of the intersection of science and religion, specifically the affect one might have on the other, but not from the point of view that includes an a priori assumption of the supernatural or the paranormal.
• Discussion on the benefits of spirituality on society or the individual from a social or health benefit angle, provided that the discussion is scientific, reasoned, and does not include an a priori assumption of the supernatural and paranormal.

I think we should include, comparative relgion studies, current issues involving religion, and other topics which may have value to science on the basis of providing data with which a scientific study of religion can be conducted. I think the main point here is that if discussion here is in principle geared toward a scientific purpose then it must adhere to some minimal principles which usually govern discussions in science.

What is considered off-topic in this forum are threads and posts of the following nature:

• Those that proselytize, evangelize, or otherwise pronounce the benefits of religious superstition over that of secular life including science. There are innumerable religious forums on the internet to visit for this.
• Those that are anti-science with the intent to troll/bait members of a science board.
• Proclamations that the Bible, Quran, [insert religious doctrine] already reveals modern scientific achievements, etc.

I think the main point here is that pushing the truth of religious claims as in any way superceding the truth of scientific claims is unwelcome. A scientific approach does not and cannot see any validity in an argument from supernatural authority.

• Those that seek to hypothesize the qualities of a god (all-powerful; all-knowing; etc.) -there's a philosophy forum for such discussions as thought experiments.
• Those posts/threads that seek only to ridicule or belittle religion or the religious.

Some of these in the two categories above will require judgment by the staff. It's understandable that some members will hold religious belief and find it hard to discuss religious topics without expressing that belief. Its also understood that since religion very often affects scientific endeavors that criticism will result. In those cases the moderator(s) will use judgment in deciding the extent to which the posts/threads are relevant or over the top.

The first of these can be an important part of a discussion on comparative religion, and the second can be a very subjective line to draw. So I think perhaps one line to draw here is with posts that harp on these opinion only type topics. Opinions shared should stop there and not act like repeating opinions on such matters over and over again will make them anything more than opinion. Let us just say that unruly behavior on topics founded only on opinions is wearing out its welcome in this forum.


In addition to these I will add the following, which I think is the most important of all:

The scientific consensus should be afforded this minimal type of respect, that effort be shown to examine and understand that consensus and the reasons for it before indulging in opinions that it is just wrong.

[verzen]

I actually wouldn't mind having such a place, the problem is everyone just starts whining about other members and it ends up overloading the administration with BS complaints. If you walk in to a biker bar dressed in drag and get your ass kicked, who's fault is it ?

The bar tender's fault... there are gay biker bars you know. =P

[mitchellmckain]

nothing can be accomplished here with these outlandish, unrealistic and ridiculous guidelines.

LOL

We have every intention of devising forum guidelines for the specific purpose of obstructing your ability to accomplish what you seem to think is worth accomplishing.

LOL

[daytonturner]

I'm outta here.

Goodbye

[Quantime]

Just ban him I would. It would solve a lot of problems and tensions here. I'm sure many would be glad to see him go.

As for you archeaologist, remember to turn the other cheek and judge not lest thee be judged and even then being all forgiving you wouldn't so do one please. No offense but you've outstayed your welcome, its not funny, its not mature and it is science so in all due respect; piss off. Hopefully you'll learn a valuable lesson that I learned so brutally and that is that you cannot and should not press your beliefs onto someone else especially when they are happy where they are. They will go on their way they will and you can do the same; we're all different so just accept that and move on.

You'll get more and more out of control and it will spiral out of control then you'll be left saying most of us are deluded ignorant crackpots and that won't do you any good.

Take some time off, chill out and go somewhere else it is best trust me. If you want to constantly preach and talk religion go to a religion forum not a science forum; its common sense.

[drowsy turtle]

congrats to those 2 who have shown up and registered. i hope we can have a good discussion according to the rules there.

1) Having a good discussion
2) Sticking to teh rules there

It would appear that 1&2 are mutually exclusive.

Just ban him I would. It would solve a lot of problems and tensions here. I'm sure many would be glad to see him go.

what are you afraid of?

Dead badgers, since you asked.

if you have the truth you would not be so quick to ban me.

If you could show us why you are right, we would not need to.

I saw 'we', but actually it's nothing to do with me.

As for you archeaologist, remember to turn the other cheek and judge not lest thee be judged and even then being all forgiving you wouldn't so do one please. No offense but you've outstayed your welcome, its not funny, its not mature and it is science so in all due respect; piss off.

i have yet to judge anyone and i have turned the cheek so much both sides are red.

Telling me I'm wrong without even reading my reasoning for my position is judging. I would judge you back, but let's face it:

1) You wouldn't listen
2) It wouldn't be anything you don't already know
3) I don't actually agree with judging
4) I can't be bothered.

really, i didn't know it was up to you since this is a public forum

I didn't ever realise it was up to you to decide what is fact, and what is not.

though a heavily slanted one which tries to keep the truth out.

hehe.

See the above.

You'll get more and more out of control and it will spiral out of control then you'll be left saying most of us are deluded ignorant crackpots and that won't do you any good

the only thing that puts people outof control are the powers that be who administer the forum with hypocrisy, double standards, unfairness and so on.

Oh, the irony!

if they werre honest and had a honest forum then things would be different.

Oh, the irony!

If you want to constantly preach and talk religion go to a religion forum not a science forum; its common sense

preaching to the choir accomplishes very little. i am not preaching but defending and presenting the truth--God's side.

the truth -> your opinion

Can't god present his own opinion, anyway?

For an omnipotent god, he doesn't seem to do much.

I didn't ever realise it was up to you to decide what is fact, and what is not.

there is a verse-- How will they hear if no one goes (or something close to that). i stayed within the previous rules, i did not venture into forums that i should not have nor have i done anything that has spoiled your right of free choice nor interfered in your scientific discussions in other forums but staye in the then religin forum with my comments--what did i do wrong?

Spewing dogma and causing huge conflict within the forum.

And refusing to accept the posibility that you may be wrong.

You would tell the reincarnation of buddha, to his face, that he didn't exist.

i did not preach but presented God's side

God's side would be christianity.

Presenting christianity with the amount of force you have is preaching.

and you all are to be objective yet when it comes to things you do not want to hear, you ignore that ideal.

It is just that; an ideal.

And furthermore, it is your ideal, not mine.

I do not deal in 'if's and 'but's. If you want me to accept something, give me a reason to, don't just tell me I'm wrong.

the problem squarely rests with you.

Oh, so you don't have a problem with me?

Does that mean if I come to your forum you won't delete my posts? Even if they challenge the bible? How about if they agree with the bible, but not the way you interpret it? What about if I point out the flaws in your beliefs, by directly quoting the bible?

How about if I stay away from the bible and quote the qu'ran?

Do I have freedom of speach in the archaeologist-controlled world of "archiesarena"? (no)

You had freedom of speach here. Unfortunately, you wasted it by repeating yourself and trying to deny others their freedom of speach, in so doing losing it yourself (almost completely, hopefully soon to become completely)

[John Galt]

what are you afraid of?

Dead badgers, since you asked.

I know what you mean. They just lie there. All black and white. Their long snouts being, well, just long. And black and white. And then just when you think they might never move again, they don't. Did I mention black and white?

[drowsy turtle]

what are you afraid of?

Dead badgers, since you asked.

I know what you mean. They just lie there. All black and white. Their long snouts being, well, just long. And black and white. And then just when you think they might never move again, they don't. Did I mention black and white?

What scares me is that they are secular (archy, look up the word; they actually are secular).

[John Galt]

Here is an extract from "Formations of the Secular", page 207.

Badger's English-Arabic Lexicon, published in 1881, gives two words for "secular" in the sense of "lay, not clerical": 'almaniyy and ammiyy.

Do I seem bored?

[drowsy turtle]

Secularity (adjective form secular) is the state of being separate from religion.[1] For instance, eating and bathing may be regarded as examples of secular activities, because there may not be anything inherently religious about them. Nevertheless, both eating and bathing are regarded as sacraments in some religious traditions, and therefore would be religious activities in those worldviews. Saying a prayer derived from religious text or doctrine, worshipping through the context of a religion, and attending a religious school are examples of religious (non-secular) activities. However prayer and meditation are not necessarily non-secular being that the concept of spirituality and higher consciousness are not married solely to any religion but are practiced and arose independently across a continuum of cultures.

No more so than me.

I'm sick of archy using the word secular wrongly.

[John Galt]

I'm sick of archy using the word secular wrongly.

Either through a challenged intellect (that's PC for 'he's really dumb'), or a fourth rate education, his command of written language is poor. As noted above I suspect this ties in with his inability to apply logic.

He would benefit, perhaps, from reading Alice Through the Looking Glass, wherein Humpty Dumpty remarks.....

`And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

Whenever I read archie's posts I see, in my mind's eye, a misguided, inappropriately confident Humpty Dumpty.

[archaeologist]

i am not using it wrongly.

[drowsy turtle]

Oh, OK. In that case, you're just talking shit.

[Arcane_Mathematician]

secular science... science without religion. I think he used it in context and correctly. You only have a problem with the fact that virtually all credible science is secular, and there seems to be little reason to differentiate and add the term where it is already implied

[John Galt]

secular science... science without religion. I think he used it in context and correctly. You only have a problem with the fact that virtually all credible science is secular, and there seems to be little reason to differentiate and add the term where it is already implied

To a fundamentalist the term secular is abusive. It's equivalent to child molester. From archie's viewpoint he is saying scientists are as evil as child molesters. (Remember he thinks that the Roman Catholic Church is as evil as Pol Pot.)

[archaeologist]

don't speak for me.

[dedo]

I think, the sole purpose of this, is to cut down on the preachy posts made by a few people here (not just arch, but a lot of other trolls that pop in and have their say and bail)

People bail for different reasons. Dayton has apparently "bailed" and he was no troll.

People have very strong feelings about religion for obvious reasons. Some people are willing to kill each other over it.

Some people's feelings are so strong they feel a need to "force" others toward their individual point of view. That can be done in a variety of ways including creating rules that discriminate against people with whom you disagree.

My understanding of the rules is that any measure of mocking, name calling, or baiting delivered against religions or religious is acceptable. Retaliation of any sort, including the same sort of nonsense, inviting (called preaching) or testimony of personal experience is sanctioned.

I have no interest in converting anyone. I am interested in exploring things regarding intersection of religion and social/political science that I believe could be relevant to our collective well being in the near future.

Unfortunately, what I do know about creative networks is that excessive "top down" control makes this impossible.

Thus, if I "bail", it will not be because someone did not want to prescribe/explore my religious point of view that is still (and will always be) growing, it is because exploring the "unexplored" is not possible without free discussion.

[John Galt]

My understanding of the rules is that any measure of mocking, name calling, or baiting delivered against religions or religious is acceptable. Retaliation of any sort, including the same sort of nonsense, inviting (called preaching) or testimony of personal experience is sanctioned. .

I think they have been written that way, but I don't think they were intended that way. How they are implemented is yet a third thing.

[(In)Sanity]

Thus, if I "bail", it will not be because someone did not want to prescribe/explore my religious point of view that is still (and will always be) growing, it is because exploring the "unexplored" is not possible without free discussion.

Free discussion is not a problem, being a dictator by simply saying everyone else is wrong because my faith says they are wrong becomes a problem. If a statement can't be countered with some type of logic it becomes in a sense preaching. For example, God says in chapter 12 paragraph 9 subsection 3 that "You are all wrong". We can at least counter the book from which that came from. Archy on the other hand would simply state, "You would be wrong" without even explaining why. So the whole anti preaching part is to cut down on the answers that are in fact just personal opinion.

Some people appear to have a hard time separating debatable answers with arrogant answers that are simple opinions they feel very strongly about. It would be the same as saying Blue M&M's are the best tasting in the world. If one were to say Blue M&M's taste the best because of some specific chemical in the dye then this would be considered opinion that is debatable and logical.

[mitchellmckain]

People bail for different reasons. Dayton has apparently "bailed" and he was no troll.

Dayton is a long time participant and an old friend. He may be back.

People have very strong feelings about religion for obvious reasons. Some people are willing to kill each other over it.

Some people's feelings are so strong they feel a need to "force" others toward their individual point of view. That can be done in a variety of ways including creating rules that discriminate against people with whom you disagree.

Every community has to impose something. Even tolerance involves such an imposition. In any case there is little room on a forum for some person to make himself God and judge of everyone else, that postion is already filled by the creator of the forum.

My understanding of the rules is that any measure of mocking, name calling, or baiting delivered against religions or religious is acceptable. Retaliation of any sort, including the same sort of nonsense, inviting (called preaching) or testimony of personal experience is sanctioned.

I had some guidelines designed to preserve the status quo when I started that were pretty permissive of hostility against religion, but administration sentiment was already shifting against this when archy showed up to stir the pot further, so we are now hashing over what sort of guidelines to use from now on. Please bear with us in the meantime.

I have no interest in converting anyone. I am interested in exploring things regarding intersection of religion and social/political science that I believe could be relevant to our collective well being in the near future.

I certainly share such interests.

Unfortunately, what I do know about creative networks is that excessive "top down" control makes this impossible.

Thus, if I "bail", it will not be because someone did not want to prescribe/explore my religious point of view that is still (and will always be) growing, it is because exploring the "unexplored" is not possible without free discussion.

I quite agree and I think this forum has a lot of potential to be that kind of forum. It is certainly the forum with the least top town control of any that I have participated in. However every forum is going to have some sort of built in bias of some sort. It is safe to say that this forum will always be biased against anti-science rhetoric.

[John Galt]

It would be the same as saying Blue M&M's are the best tasting in the world.

You would be wrong. That is unscientific. The red M&Ms taste better. You are simply revealing the inbuilt bias of this forum. There is simply no level playing field here.

[samcdkey]

Oh what a surprise, the religion section will now be based on science.

Like this:

http://www.thescienceforum.com/Archa...ral-18823t.php

[Arcane_Mathematician]

The premise of that thread is, I will agree, rather bad. But it is inspiring a moral debate on christianity

[samcdkey]

Been there, done that, saw the movie bought the teeshirt.

Now lets see how evenhanded the moderators are in upholding "scientific"
standards.

[mitchellmckain]

Been there, done that, saw the movie bought the teeshirt.

Now lets see how evenhanded the moderators are in upholding "scientific"
standards.

Excuse me. We will not even try to uphold what you decide (without discussion or looking at the issues) are the standards in what you imagine is evenhanded. We are looking for something that works, and you can be part of the solution by making suggestions or you can be a part of the problem by heckling.

Have you even read the whole thread? I don't think so!

This is a complicated situation. Some of us would like to keep a religion section, so what do you want? To shut it down?

What we do know is that if we are going to carry on a discussion of religion then it is not going to work with someone who acts like they are speaking for God Himself such that his word cannot be questioned or criticised. What do you think?

[SkinWalker]

Been there, done that, saw the movie bought the teeshirt.

Now lets see how evenhanded the moderators are in upholding "scientific"
standards.

Excuse me. We will not even try to uphold what you decide (without discussion or looking at the issues) are the standards in what you imagine is evenhanded. We are looking for something that works, and you can be part of the solution by making suggestions or you can be a part of the problem by heckling.

Have you even read the whole thread? I don't think so!

This is a complicated situation. Some of us would like to keep a religion section, so what do you want? To shut it down?

What we do know is that if we are going to carry on a discussion of religion then it is not going to work with someone who acts like they are speaking for God Himself such that his word cannot be questioned or criticised. What do you think?

Knowing Sam, she probably has read the whole thread. You're right, however, that she's good at heckling, which is a shame because she would be a great ally in trying to develop a subforum on a science forum where religion can be discussed without having the trolling and crap that goes along with it.

The problem is, and I can't exactly blame her, her bias against the notion has to do with me and where we know each other from. From her point of view, I'm an unfair and biased atheist mod of another forum where she is far more prolific and, as such, she's more interested in finding our disagreements and faults of moderation than solutions.

Too bad. She's one of the smartest people we could ever have participate in developing a workable solution where, not only could we have some really good discourse, but some fun as well.

[samcdkey]

Excuse me. We will not even try to uphold what you decide (without discussion or looking at the issues) are the standards in what you imagine is evenhanded. We are looking for something that works, and you can be part of the solution by making suggestions or you can be a part of the problem by heckling.

Have you even read the whole thread? I don't think so!

This is a complicated situation. Some of us would like to keep a religion section, so what do you want? To shut it down?

There is a perfectly good scientific method [not "decided" by me] already in place. There are tons of theological discussions available in the literature, where philosophical views on God are rationally discussed, when empirical absolutes seem inadequate.

The ideal way to maintain a scientific attitude is to project one. ie. if there is personal bias, address it. if there is heckling or mockery, address it. if there is unsubstantiated bullshit, point it out. It should not matter which camp it comes from. Thats how its done at science presentations. No matter how little we are convinced about the veracity, logic, ethics or reason behind a hypothesis, we do not lower ourselves to pointing out how delusional the "other" is. And contrary to outside appearance, there are quite a few delusional people in science too.

What we do know is that if we are going to carry on a discussion of religion then it is not going to work with someone who acts like they are speaking for God Himself such that his word cannot be questioned or criticised. What do you think?

There is sufficient historical information [or lack of it] to challenge any point of view in any religion. It just takes a little thought to dig it up.

[samcdkey]

The problem is, and I can't exactly blame her, her bias against the notion has to do with me and where we know each other from. From her point of view, I'm an unfair and biased atheist mod of another forum where she is far more prolific and, as such, she's more interested in finding our disagreements and faults of moderation than solutions.

Too bad. She's one of the smartest people we could ever have participate in developing a workable solution where, not only could we have some really good discourse, but some fun as well.

Methinks you presume too much. Mitchell is the moderator here. If as admin, you have done anything other than agree to change the forum name in Religion, I am not aware of it. The only point at which we have disagreed in this forum [and which I did not make an issue of] was your trigger happy closing of the thread on Jews and perhaps permabanning the member involved in the discussion. Nothing to do with this topic.

[SkinWalker]

Methinks you presume too much. Mitchell is the moderator here. If as admin, you have done anything other than agree to change the forum name in Religion, I am not aware of it. The only point at which we have disagreed in this forum [and which I did not make an issue of] was your trigger happy closing of the thread on Jews and perhaps permabanning the member involved in the discussion. Nothing to do with this topic.

Fair enough. I'm willing to leave our issues at other places in those other places (with a hope to resolve those, too, at some point in the not-to-distant future. I think your observations to Mitchell above have merit and we (TSF staff) are actively developing the revisions for this forum as we speak. I see no reason why we cannot include member input such as yours in those discussions.

The goal here isn't to carve out a slice of "atheist heaven" for lack of better terms, but to provide a place where fair and balanced discourse can occur. I think the bias would naturally be toward science and that this bias is okay (if this were a metaphysical or even a sports forum, should we not expect the bias to be towards metaphysics or sports?) but there's no reason why theistic arguments cannot be heard and given enough respect to be discussed. Nor is there a reason why hardline atheists should be permitted to harass and belittle.

Thanks for your input.

[samcdkey]

Perhaps I should have been clearer, my comment was not on the "slice of atheist heaven" that you presume it was. It was on the inconsistency between the claim of a Scientific Study of Religion vs a new thread which was a personal attack on a member.

[John Galt]

Perhaps I should have been clearer, my comment was not on the "slice of atheist heaven" that you presume it was. It was on the inconsistency between the claim of a Scientific Study of Religion vs a new thread which was a personal attack on a member.

A personal attack on a member who by their posts had revealed zero respect or tolerance for any other member or any other point of view, who had indulged themselves in willfull ignorance, rejected any and all data that did not support their narrowminded world view, condemned as evil those who held differing views, refused to acknowledge reasoned argument, consistently refuse to recognise opposing thoughts, and generally behaved in an anti-social, rude, offensive, ignorant, intolerant, inconsistent, self righteous manner. And these were his good points.

Such a member deserved every attack directed at him and then some. There is no longer a record of it on his own forum, but he reduced a member there to internet tears by a despicable and unwarranted attack, then abused his power to suppress their genuine efforts to establish a dialogue. He is a piece of shit whose very existence makes a strong case for pre-emptive euthenasia. (You may reasonably deduce that I didn't much care for him.)

Don't mix up genuine concern for protection of unpalatable views and religiously oriented comments with defence of an unpleasant anomaly.

[mitchellmckain]

Perhaps I should have been clearer, my comment was not on the "slice of atheist heaven" that you presume it was. It was on the inconsistency between the claim of a Scientific Study of Religion vs a new thread which was a personal attack on a member.

Archaeologists-Funeral

Well besides the fact that he is no longer a member, I saw this as pretty light hearted banter compared to what has been going on, and I even see it as playing a healing role to address much of the psychic damage that he left behind him. It is true that it doesn't really belong in the "scientific study of religion" section.

[dedo]

It is a difficult problem on how to allow free discussion without excessive religion bashing and without attempts to force religious views one people who are not interested.

The problem is compounded by the fact that religion is not science, and like many disciplines, it may not be possible to understand religion, or religious views, without some latitude for people to explain why they think the way they do.

For example, if I want to understand an athletic sport, that understanding will never come from peer reviewed journals. I can gain much more understanding if I listen to people who actually play the sport. Final understanding only comes by participation.

Personally, I favor less rules as opposed to more. I also believe the moderator, Mitchell, should have wide latitude in enforcing the rules without Skinwalker or Insanity's help (unless Mitchell is busy at home etc.)

Thus, I am not advocating suppression of atheist rants; however, if it crosses a "line" then maybe the guy/gal should lose whatever protection he/she had against preaching.

I don't post a lot compared to others. Recently, I only posted in two other places. The first is a religious forum where the moderation is very strict. Even a disrespectful "tone" is corrected. The second was a completely unmoderated foreign policy forum. In the FP forum, name calling was routine and exhortation of genocide was not uncommon.

Although the FP forum eventually was shut down for "security concerns", there was more "problem solving" there than in the religious forum. So I personally am not a big fan of over moderation since "problem solving" is my main interest. However, one interesting attempt to solve a problem, was wrecked by "baiting", so some moderation at that point would have helped.

[samcdkey]

Perhaps I should have been clearer, my comment was not on the "slice of atheist heaven" that you presume it was. It was on the inconsistency between the claim of a Scientific Study of Religion vs a new thread which was a personal attack on a member.

A personal attack on a member who by their posts had revealed zero respect or tolerance for any other member or any other point of view, who had indulged themselves in willfull ignorance, rejected any and all data that did not support their narrowminded world view, condemned as evil those who held differing views, refused to acknowledge reasoned argument, consistently refuse to recognise opposing thoughts, and generally behaved in an anti-social, rude, offensive, ignorant, intolerant, inconsistent, self righteous manner. And these were his good points.

Such a member deserved every attack directed at him and then some. There is no longer a record of it on his own forum, but he reduced a member there to internet tears by a despicable and unwarranted attack, then abused his power to suppress their genuine efforts to establish a dialogue. He is a piece of shit whose very existence makes a strong case for pre-emptive euthenasia. (You may reasonably deduce that I didn't much care for him.)

Don't mix up genuine concern for protection of unpalatable views and religiously oriented comments with defence of an unpleasant anomaly.

I'm not the one who is confused. None of the above has anything to do with science. This is the internet, you have the option to ignore posts you don't agree with.

[Arcane_Mathematician]

She rightly has a point. The bashing of members is rude, and one thing I'd say should be censored, if nothing else. Personally, I think the idea put forth in the new version of this subforum is a little extreme. I don't think making this strictly a view on religion by science, but rather the rational discourse of religion would be a better idea. More emphasis on Reason and Logic than Scientific study, just to make it more friendly to the less scientifically apt persons.

[(In)Sanity]

She rightly has a point. The bashing of members is rude, and one thing I'd say should be censored, if nothing else. Personally, I think the idea put forth in the new version of this subforum is a little extreme. I don't think making this strictly a view on religion by science, but rather the rational discourse of religion would be a better idea. More emphasis on Reason and Logic than Scientific study, just to make it more friendly to the less scientifically apt persons.

I somewhat agree with this, so long as we don't return to the dark days of past (last week). Just because one speeds doesn't mean one will get a ticket. However, driving 120 in a 45 zone is likely to attract a whole lot of attention.

[mitchellmckain]

She rightly has a point. The bashing of members is rude, and one thing I'd say should be censored, if nothing else.

You are right. I need to learn not to bash people myself in order to effectively censor this, don't you think.

Personally, I think the idea put forth in the new version of this subforum is a little extreme. I don't think making this strictly a view on religion by science, but rather the rational discourse of religion would be a better idea. More emphasis on Reason and Logic than Scientific study, just to make it more friendly to the less scientifically apt persons.

But that is exactly what the changes are aiming at. I think the hoped effect of the change is somewhat less than what you fear and less than what I also feared in my immediate reaction when this started. But I quickly realized that the real aim and point of the change is simply that what we are not interested in, is "strictly a view on" science by religion.

One of the things I think that can be argued effectively by anyone who really knows science well is that science is FAR more capable of seeing its own limitations than is religion. But by seeing its own limitations, it is far more likely to admit that a strictly scientific view of relgion is inadequate, than religion is likely to admit that a strictly religious view of science is inadequate. I mean there are of course plenty of religous PEOPLE who recognize the limitations of religion, the value of science and the the inability of relgion to be the arbiter of scientific inquiry, but what is there that can be said to be inherent in the methods of religion that enables it to see its own limitations? Is it not in fact quite likely to be the opposite, that in its aspirations to communicate with the divine (whether there really is such a thing or not), it ultimately accepts no limitations at all?

[John Galt]

I'm not the one who is confused. None of the above has anything to do with science. This is the internet, you have the option to ignore posts you don't agree with.

So why did you respond to mine?

I have the options to ignore posts, I also have the option to be enraged by snide, disrespectful, egocentric, misleading posts. I do not have to react to such posts, but I can choose to do so.

I oppose censorship. Archie can post his nonsense in his own forum for as long as he wishes. Regretably I shall have to defend his right to do so. His right to free speech is not, however, universal. He does not have the automatic right to walk into the Senate and start spouting his nonsense. Nor do I believe and I did not believe he had the right to do so here, where he was not contributing anything of value to the forum. Indeed the reverse was occuring.

The majority of the members, myself included, frankly had no idea what do with archie. It was akin to coming home to find a very large pile of fecal matter on your living room carpet, gaurded by two savage dobermans. His presence had nothing to do with science. His posts had nothing to with science. He had nothing to do with science. Some cathartic voicing of the frustration that generated may well be a good thing.

[Arcane_Mathematician]

She rightly has a point. The bashing of members is rude, and one thing I'd say should be censored, if nothing else. Personally, I think the idea put forth in the new version of this subforum is a little extreme. I don't think making this strictly a view on religion by science, but rather the rational discourse of religion would be a better idea. More emphasis on Reason and Logic than Scientific study, just to make it more friendly to the less scientifically apt persons.

I somewhat agree with this, so long as we don't return to the dark days of past (last week). Just because one speeds doesn't mean one will get a ticket. However, driving 120 in a 45 zone is likely to attract a whole lot of attention.

I'm not suggesting that we go back to the preach happy days of yore. quite the contrary, I feel the change is good. It was just, in the days following the change, there was such an emphasis on the removal of personal opinion from posts, the complete injection of scientific investigation, and the ideal that a religious perspective is worthless that scared me. I understand why that was done, but I feel, personally, that in order to enforce the 'no religion' promotion, would effectively end the subforum. I think a more apt name for it may be spirituality and religion, simply because the discussion of belief structures and ideas seems to be more the environment, and the ideal there, rather than the structured 'who came first, what does it contribute, why do I care, bla bla bla' that really isn't fun to talk to people about. I don't, honestly, want to discuss the origins of all of the religions, and then compare them in a manner more befitting a discussion in, say, physics. I'd much rather talk about what everyone believes in, they ideals on spirituality everyone holds, and the practices that some religion will follow. The strict structural argument takes all the fun out of it (one reason I dare not venture to Philo, too much logic goin on there :wink: ).

I believe in the freedom to speak your mind and opinion, and to to have polite, constructive discussions. I am against the emotional outbursts that I, too, am guilty of having. I feel that, instead of curving the ideals, just curve the manner of discussion; once the preaching and ad hominem's are removed, I think the whole section would be better off. Just my two cents

[samcdkey]

So why did you respond to mine?

Note that I am not celebrating your funeral and I chose not to ignore your post because I wanted to point out how it did not, in any way, address my point: A scientific study of religion does not include "healing" yourself by venting at banned members who are unable to respond.

One of the things I think that can be argued effectively by anyone who really knows science well is that science is FAR more capable of seeing its own limitations than is religion

Since science is a tool in the hands of men [and women] it is not capable of anything outside the minds of men and is capable of everything within it. This kind of anthropomorphism is meaningless. Science is also practised by doctors in North Korea who write down their observations while exposing families to poison gas. It was also practised in Buchenwald. Science by itself has no limitations other than those conferred upon it by men [and women]

[John Galt]

So why did you respond to mine?

Note that I am not celebrating your funeral and I chose not to ignore your post because I wanted to point out how it did not, in any way, address my point: A scientific study of religion does not include "healing" yourself by venting at banned members who are unable to respond.

I wasn't attempting to address your point, or to disagree with you. You are smart enough to read my post again and recognise that both those statements are true and accurate. Having done so you will be able to make a reflective, thoughful post (should you choose to do so) rather than one that has the appearance of a knee jerk reaction.

[samcdkey]

I wasn't attempting to address your point, or to disagree with you. You are smart enough to read my post again and recognise that both those statements are true and accurate. Having done so you will be able to make a reflective, thoughful post (should you choose to do so) rather than one that has the appearance of a knee jerk reaction.

I couldn't care less how "true" or "accurate" it is. In a scientific forum, if you were to use a platform for scientific study to mock a person rather than address his ideas, facts and assumptions, you'd still be considered a troll

Try it. Pick a creationist who is infamous for his anti-scientific rhetoric, then go to a conference on evolution and tell them how pathetic you think that creationist is and whine, bitch and moan about him.

You'd get more attention if instead, you were to address why some people believe what they believe, how their thought processes work and why education about evolution is seen as complex or incomprehensible. You could even get attention if you were seen to be someone interested in addressing why scriptures are taken as a substitute for science. But if all you did was bitch and moan about a person, it would be pointless and counterproductive.

[John Galt]

I couldn't care less how "true" or "accurate" it is.

Fair enough. You aren't interested in truth and accuracy. I'll keep that in mind.

In a scientific forum, if you were to use a platform for scientific study to mock a person rather than address his ideas, facts and assumptions, you'd still be considered a troll

So? Am I disagreeing? Do you routinely argue a point that isn't being debated? What's the benefit of that?

You'd get more attention if instead

I'm not looking for attention.

[samcdkey]

So? Am I disagreeing? Do you routinely argue a point that isn't being debated? What's the benefit of that?

Exactly. 8)

[John Galt]

So? Am I disagreeing? Do you routinely argue a point that isn't being debated? What's the benefit of that?

Exactly. 8)

You are being unusually obtuse. My original post was designed to inform and enlighten, not to justify or defend. For some reason, perhaps your inherent aggression, you decided it was the latter and have been attacking that imagined defence ever since.

I recommend a cold shower and a hot cup of tea.

[Cosmo]

I have changed the name of this sub forum. I hope it helps to clarify that this is not a place to preach the so called word of God any longer. Feel free to argue about who was alive when and what events took place that created a certain writing, or what parable was derived from what story, etc. Do not however expect that just saying something is true because someone wrote that God said it is will suffice. This is a science forum, this is not a place to help spread religion or faith. Religion has a massive history and foundation that people claim is based on actual events. I would suggest using actual evidence to support your claims going forward.

The nominate a moderator thread has been archived. That's my way of saying it's no longer visible here.

OK IS, I would like to offer my scientific opinion on this issue.

Since religion is considered to be an indoctrination of ones personal beliefs, then the solution to this problem is NATURE.
Nature is our greatest artist, inventor and therefore, our GREATEST teacher.
It is also reality as a picture rather than a lot of words as other religions portray themselves.

Nuff said.

Cosmo

[DaBOB]

Ha, I just noticed the change. It's too bad, after all this is a science forum and the scientific approach should be a cardinal rule . However, it seems the change was indeed necessary.

Two thumbs up.