Posted on 06/30/2008 4:41:23 PM PDT by Kevmo
The crevo threads typically degenerate into name calling. Recently, the Religion Moderator declared that "science is not religion", and did not publish the criteria for such consideration. My suggestion to the evolutionist community has been to acknowledge that Scientism is a religion and start to utilize the protections offered under the religion tags that are different than other threads (due to the intensity of feelings over religious issues). So this thread is intended to be an ECUMENICAL thread under the tag of SCIENTISM. The intent is to keep discussion civil.
I would like to see a straightforward discussion over the topic of whether scientism should be treated as a religion on FR. I'll try to find the links to the adminlecture series about what the ground rules are on ecumenical threads, and I'll copy some recent interactions that show the need for scientism to be treated as a religion on FR.
Well, since your not busy with that anymore, are you willing to consider other things you might be able to do to reduce the vitriol and invective on “crevo” threads?
***Invalid assumption — I’m still busy with it. And even if I wasn’t busy with it, I have no desire to give up on my own suggestion. So, like I said, go ahead and open up your own thread with your own suggestions and knock yourself out.
It was a simple enough proposal. If you don’t like it, don’t do it.
My “tactic”, as you call it, has been to show why “faith” according to the definition you provided and what Scripture says faith is; isn't something applicable to Science, which is only accepted provisionally and based upon the preponderance of evidence, while Faith is eternal and not based upon physical evidence, and thus will not be changed by physical evidence.
“So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal” (2 Corinthians 4:18).
Hebrews 11
1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
It wasn't as much a question of motives as a question of objective. In retrospect, I suppose simply not having them at all would be a way to "reduce the vitriol", and this would probably go a long way toward accomplishing that.
I gave my response in #178 and it still stands. Feel free to open your own thread with your own definition.
Why not? Just as goofy as all the rest of em.
That one point may agree with the bible, but there is more to the Big Bang than that.I could not disagree more. "In the beginning God created..." Before the Big Bang theory scientists believed in an eternal universe. Big Bang theory says there was a singular beginning to space and time which is absolutely in line with scripture. Atheists were very much against the theory untill the evidence became overwhelming. [excerpt, bold emphasis mine]
As a Christian, my faith in God and His Word take precedent over everything else.I really don't understand fellow Christians having a problem with what may be the single most important physical evidence pointing to a Creator. The Big Bang is a problem for the atheist position. [excerpt]
Not to nitpick but that ought to "those guys" as I am not a scientist, Scientismist or an "evolutionist."
...they will probably get pointed to this thread, so you guys have only yourselves to blame for the putrid state of affairs on crevo threads.
You keep trying to put the blame on thread structure and/or "those guys." Doesn't it take two to argue? You keep pointing away from any notion of personal responsibility.
Personally, I hope you don't succeed.
It was an ugly thing to try to do the the Religion forum, IMHO.
Scientismist
***That’s kinda cool, I like it.
Doesn’t it take two to argue?
***Look at Darwin Central. They seem to have the same spirit of viciousness, even when there’s no religious conservatives to beat up on. Look at a typical caucus thread here on FR — there’s a distinct lack of that kind of viciousness. So if I’m engaging in any pointing, it is at the Darwin Central types who just like to argue over minutiae. Maybe it takes 2 to argue, but some are way more argumentative than others. And who cares, anyways? What we need to do is find a way to reduce the invective. I think I’ve found a way, that wouldn’t require any rule changes here at FR.
Just a point of view? REALLY??? :)
"In reality there is nothing to be “saved” from. It is ignorance of that that the practitioner is seeking to realize."
So the "practitioner" is seeking to save himself from the ignorance of the ignorance that people need to be saved. I get it. :)
"Nirvana is not even considered the ultimate realization in Buddhism."
You mean there's something greater than saving oneself from ignorance of ignorance? I can understand why people would want to spend their various re-births working their way to that goal. :)
All it requires is for them to let you tell them what their religion is.
All it requires is for them to let you tell them what their religion is.
***All it requires is for them to come up with a name for their chosen religion.
Christianity is my chosen religion.
Science is my profession.
Yes, that is what I have been taught. Wikipedia is not my source for Buddhist teachings.
So the "practitioner" is seeking to save himself from the ignorance of the ignorance that people need to be saved. I get it. :)
Essentially that is true. I'm glad you get it. ;^)
You mean there's something greater than saving oneself from ignorance of ignorance?
Absolutely. Seeing and understanding that this all an illusion is a long way from actualizing that realization.
I can understand why people would want to spend their various re-births working their way to that goal. :)
You should understand that. You posted a very accurate, although unnecessarily elaborate and wordy, description of it.
It was an ugly thing to try to do the the Religion forum, IMHO.
***I think it was a beautiful thing. The bible says, “blessed are the peacemakers”. Unfortunately it also says not to throw our pearls of wisdom before those who would “trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.”
You offer them "peace" in exchange for the right to profess their own religious beliefs. How generous of you.
Practitioners of science are scientists. So if you are going to coin and ism for science and call it "Scientism" then it only follows that practitioners would be called Scientismists. lol
You offer them “peace” in exchange for the right to profess their own religious beliefs. How generous of you.
***I sense sarcasm but I don’t see what you’re getting at. It seems like a reasonable offer to me, so you’re right, that is generous. Thanks for coming out to play.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.