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.
Had a few moments and skimmed the second link briefly.
One thing I disagree with is, true or false, the big bang doesn’t have atheist underpinnings and is in fact a problem for the atheist world view. It is not a “secular” explaination of origins, because it doesn’t explain away anything, but in fact, from a secular stand point, brings up a very important question.
By basic logic if the universe began to exist then it must have been caused. Science based atheism coming out of the “enlightenment” went on the premise that the universe was eternal.
This was an important point to them because their explaination for all the wonders of creation was that, yes, a mechanistic explaination is absurd however given an INFINITE amount of time it were possible. The big bang theory says there is not an infinite amount of time.
(We of course know this without the big bang, not just through scripture, but also through logic...1000 years ago philosophers figured out that the universe must have a beginning because an actual infinity would be impossible to traverse. In other words if there were an infinite number of events preceding the current moment, we would have never arrived at this moment. See the “Kalam Cosmological Argument”).
There are still today some scientists who still subscribe to the “steady state theory” of the universe, primarily for their discomfort with the notion that the universe should, scientifically and logically speaking, require a Cause.
BTW, have you read Lee Strobel’s “The Case for a Creator”?
But when Catholics get together and slowly roast Luther between themselves, the Lutherans are not invited even to listen. The analogue of that would be a thread that only the caucus members can read. We have private mail for that.
With this, we'll have competition between threads. It will no longer be a forum: there will be ugly threads running in every direction, and no refutations in the threads themselves, even of most blatant distortions. Imagine threads like
"Catholics Have Human Sacrifices In Secret"
"Methodist Sex Orgies; Tape At 11"
"Jews dun 9/11"
etc.
It might be fun for the participants, but it will damage the reputation of FR as a whole.
Now, I agree very much with what the Moderator said on that LDS thread you referenced: that
Most beliefs are born out of a departure from a previous belief.A brief reference to another confession by way of contrast should not break the caucus. What you propose is talking about another confession at length and critically. That would be unfair to the other confession if they cannot at least correct inaccuracies.If a Catholic devotional included a personal innocuous reference to Judaism, e.g. "I wish all Jews were Catholic," it would not require the thread to be opened for debate.
If a Protestant devotional included a personal innocuous reference to Catholicism, e.g. "I wish all Catholics would see things as I do" - it would not require the thread to be opened for debate.
Aside from “Greeks are Known Gluttons” as the title of a thread, I’m sure we could work out a way to prevent titles from being intentionally inflammatory.
On the other hand, it is important that people be allowed to be themselves behind closed doors. So if a baptist thread is dealing with an issue about baptism, then they should be allowed to disagree with all us baby baptizers, use all their sources, and even say they think all of us are going to hell, if that’s what a goodly block of them feel. They do so in their churches, so why not here?
And that isn’t antagonistic?
***Maybe it is. I’m very frustrated. If the Religion Moderator determines it was antagonistic, he can remove the comment and probably should.
"BTW, have you read Lee Strobel’s “The Case for a Creator”?" [excerpt]No, I have not.
Thanks for considering our suggestions.
I think we can approach this in one fell swoop rather than piecemeal. Earlier, it was posted that “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.” So, there are several areas where the VEHEMENCE runs high and the participants need closer supervision because they let their emotions get the best of them.
What we’re seeing here on this thread isn’t resistance to the idea of a religion tag for crevo threads — anyone who wants to can open a parallel crevo thread with their own chosen religion, be it catholicism, protestantism, bhuddism, scientism, atheism, or any other kind of fill_in_the_blankism. That part is established. But the evo crowd objects that a religious tag is being generated on their behalf and that they would be forced to acknowledge its precepts in order to use the tag. So, to accommodate all these nasty crevo threads and any other issue where VEHEMENCE runs high, I propose a VEHEMENCE tag in the religion moderator’s realm so that we can all access the rules setup that helps reduce the vitriol. Of course, since VEHEMENCE isn’t a religion, we would all know that this is just a made-up tag so that we can avoid vitriol. The tag could be used on ANY subject where the participants are sick of the personal attacks, invective, and vitriol that accompany the Subject.
There’s something intrinsically wrong about the idea of having ecumenical threads tagged for a religion that there aren’t any discernible followers of to post to it.
***There are those among us who can discern that there are such followers, but many of those followers prefer not to be up front about their conclusions. We see the same thing in the MainStream media, where an extremely strong liberal bias is present, but it is extremely difficult to get any of those liberals to live up to that bias.
Please look at my suggestion for a VEHEMENCE tag, which addresses this particular concern, and we could apply that tag to ANY area of vitriol on Free Republic, not just science.
Thanks for your thoughts. Have a look at post #286 for an idea that encompasses yours and addresses it on a wider scale.
Interesting, but it seems counter-intuitive. Rather than tagging it with a label designating it a VEHEMENCE thread, why not use a CIVILITY tag instead?
That sounds an awful lot like an assertion that "some of us" should get to engage in "mind reading" and others are prohibited from doing so.
You might find it an attractive idea, but I'm finding the idea of some elite group getting to declare other people's religious beliefs for them a dubious proposition.
I only gave examples of headlines; you can imagine the content that corresponds with the headline.
It will instantly transform FR into a internet-cook hate site.
One can discuss positive beliefs now on the caucus thread. I can post about veneration of saints, baby baptisms and priestly garments as day is long. That is a good thing. You suggested to allow “bashing” of other religions without the other side being able to respond. That will damage FR.
I find much of what you say to be agreeable.
That is because the underlying idea in ecumenism is that despite confessional differences Christians have more in common than not. You cannot make that assumption in the crevo debate.
***Interestingly enough, there was an exchange on this thread where one poster claimed to be christian, so his presumption is that he has “more in common with us than not”.
“There is a lot I could say and refute your theory completely, but since you’ve chosen to hide behind the ecumenic label, I will let the absurdity and self contradiction of your position remain unchallenged”.
***Actually, I like that a lot. A person can have their say and then leave the thread without disrupting it. If they really had vehemence over the issue, they’d start the same thread in an open environment and invite people over to it. But the motivations behind such actions seem pretty transparent, so there probably wouldn’t be many takers.
I'm not going to read past that nonsense. Good grief, that was only an excerpt? Why would anyone write so much gobbledygook? More to the point why would anyone read it? I got that far and it's like trying to wade through a page on DU. I can't do it.
Vitriol is only one part of the problem. You also have sarcasm, silly graphics, non-responsive responses, taking threads offtopic with provocative posts, all that.
Yes, I agree, it would be good to have a mechanism to elevate the debate on all kind of topics. For example, it is impossible to post anything from Buchanan without the thread immediately going into his alleged anti-Semitism. But he is a prominent writer, former presidential candidate and a TV personality who speaks on a whole lot of topics dear to Freepers. We should be able to discuss his ideas, if only in order to refute them, in a logical fashion.
They do so in their churches, so why not here?
***They do so behind closed doors, not in the open. That would be a freepmail conversation you’re talking about.
I bow to your superior insight on that subject.
You might find it an attractive idea, but I’m finding the idea of some elite group getting to declare other people’s religious beliefs for them a dubious proposition.
***Then you won’t have any trouble with the Vehemence/Civility tag. It would only be an open admission that the rules in effect on the Religion section of FR are better at cat-herding the participants than they are on other subforums. No religious dubiousness involved.
That wasn't the case. The poster was a reasoning non-vehement type, so the reader would presume he had a logical or factual refutation that he had to self-censor. It is easy to create an impression that people use "ecumenical" tag because they cannot withstand robust debate.
Good points.
It is easy to create an impression that people use “ecumenical” tag because they cannot withstand robust debate.
***Then it’s up to that person who has those objections to start his own thread with an open tag. I’ve seen enough baloney on these open threads for one lifetime, in the guise of intellectual debate. As long as there’s a choice, I think I’ll usually prefer the ecumenical thread to the open one because it holds both sides accountable to a higher standard.
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.