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.
That's the whole ball of wax, right there. If they will not do it explicitly, he'll find a way to make them do it implicitly.
You’re as transparent as vacuum.
***Religion Moderator, it looks like TLogic is having trouble following the guidelines of the ecumenical threads.
Is it really an ecumenical thread if no one who professes the religion it’s tagged as posts to it?
I used the definition you provided, I like it just fine. One of the definitions it included was....
Faith: belief without proof.
Because this was exactly my point you insisted I NOT USE the definition you provided.
And no need to shout.
Our founders considered Science such an important issue that of the eighteen expressly given powers of the Congress the eighth was “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
We could even have “Science Moderators” to make sure people didn't engage in personal attacks but kept it to attacking and defending ideas.
Or we could just keep it the way it is. You decry the venom on Science threads, and I agree that it can get heated and often gets personal (I have been told that I “hate the word of God” for not believing in geocentricism for example) but there are very interesting things to read and very interesting views to discuss on them.
I of course have a personal interest as a Scientist, as a Christian, and as a Conservative to express my have my view and opinions heard on the preeminent Conservative clearinghouse for news, opinion and commentary on the web.
I am glad that there are many like minded Conservatives here as well and have been very impressed by the intellectual contributions and insights that FReepers provide.
Things get pretty hot in the pro-LEO/anti-LEO (law enforcement officers for those of you in Rio Linda) side as well. That is just the nature of the animal.
I don't think it's broke. Why “fix” it, especially as my opinion this “fix” would be akin to the “fix” my dog got at the vet.
That was requested some time ago and rejected by the site owner. Just one of the reasons I have said this kind of thing will never happen. Mainstream science is the enemy.
After the mass bannings, not many of the original science crowd remained here.
So how do we proceed? For example, we rely on the geologists to tell us where to build nuclear waste storage sites, and where to drill for oil. They're pulling up ice cores in the Antartic that are providing evidence they say goes back 400,000 years that lays bare the claims of the global warming alarmists. Do we accept the results of their work while simultaneously maintaing that everything it's based on is wrong?
My own work is in life saving medicines. My work is informed by modern day Biological knowledge. Many people who think that we are the enemy sing a different tune when they or their loved ones fall sick.
As Tom Lehrer said, "I'm beginning to feel like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis."
Can I say that?
Yes, that’s the passage. Buddhism takes all of that in.
And goes off the deep end. :)
I don't see why not. I don't think there a Scientismer/Scientismists/Scientismatic/Scientimatrix present to be offended.
Either stop being antagonistic or leave the thread.
Yes it does. It describes a dichotomy where there is none. It is also written in rather self aggrandizing language too but I didn’t want to be insulting about it. I didn’t know whether you were presenting it as a view you accepted or rejected. Now that I know you don’t like it I don’t have to be so polite.
The self-aggrandizing language is just his schtick (like Rush - he likes to get a rise out of liberals)
I don't agree with him on everything, but in this case you misunderstood me. I meant that it is Buddhism that goes off the deep end, as far as I'm concerned. :)
But then, I'm an orthodox Christian.
I guess I see it the other way around. Buddhism, as I have learned it, takes the loose ends from both points of view that he describes and brings them into a single clarity of view. I don’t see how an orthodox Christian, particularly an orthodox, could see what he wrote as anything other than an intellectual curiosity either. Oh well.
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.