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.
I never said that but it is true that I don't particularly see it as a religion. Even my teacher has said he isn't sure he would call it such. So what?
As I said. There are only two religions when they're all boiled down to their essence; the "real" and the "counterfeit".
That isn't what you said at all.
God is sovereign Man is sovereign (man earns his salvation)All the worlds religions can be boiled down into two religions:
As for the rest of your post I think you have lost sight of the idea that it isn't acceptable to be personally insulting on an ecumenical thread.
Did I say that?
TigersEye: "Did I say that?"
So this Buddhist has it wrong?:
"..When a person dies, their soul can split up into several animals - a flock of sheep, a hive of bees, a hill of ants, etc. When one takes the life of one of these animals, they are actually taking part of the life of the human that once was. The Shurangama Sutra tells how a person who eats a sheep may become a sheep in the next life, and how the sheep might become a person. In a repetitive cycle, "they eat each other" (Shurangama Sutra, 80). There is no hierarchy of sentient beings; although each are at different levels, they are equally important. So, killing an animal is really an act of murder; eating the animal is cannibalism. Following this line of belief, we can see why many Buddhists practice liberating animals, or saving animals that are destined to be slaughtered. .." HERE
Yes, it is. However I have said it, it means the same thing.
"As for the rest of your post I think you have lost sight of the idea that it isn't acceptable to be personally insulting on an ecumenical thread."
Heaven forbid. :)
Heaven forbid that you can engage in a civil discussion or heaven forbid that you could tell the truth?
Are you getting bored again? :)
Both of you: discuss the issues all you want but do not make it personal and do not be antagonistic. Also, do not make this thread "about" yourselves. That is a form of "making it personal."
Kevmo: 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
TLogic: That sounds reasonable. Is that forum-wide or are we talking about keeping it all in the Religion forum?
***Sorry I’ve been out of town for several days. With these tags, it is up to each individual poster to determine how he wants the thread to run. If no one wants these tags, no one will use them. Basically, from now on, when I see an interesting scientific topic that spirals downward, I feel free to open the same topic with an ecumenical tag and the discussion will be more closely moderated. Whoever doesn’t want to be involved with civil discussion, doesn’t have to be.
If we dump it all into Religion it means we lose the ability to categorize by topic that posting in various other forums affords.
***I’m not sure that’s the case. The current ecumenical tagging system doesn’t seem to have lost that ability.
True, but his objection is accomplished without any open tag thread.
***Then if it becomes a pattern, we contact the religion mod and he deals with it as a form of antagonism, which is not allowed on ecumenical threads.
I primariy debate things with Protestants, and their confession all grew from denying Catholiicsm, I feel that if I force them not to criticize Catholicism through the thread tag mechanism, I am putting them at a disadvantage.
***I’m protestant, and my confession did not grow from denying catholicism. So, right there, your premise is false and the pursuit of it would be a form of antagonism.
I think what is being called “Scientism” and defined as a discrete religion is schism - a doctrinal point of departure among various other religions and denominations. It fails the test of being a religion for purposes of an ecumenical discussion because there are no adherents to that philosophy as a religion to post to the threads and represent that view.
***The test that matters is the one applied by the religion moderator. As far as I know, he has not published the criteria for establishing a religion. However, he has allowed Scientism as a tag in this ecumenical thread, which for purposes of our own discussion is the equivalent to the establishment of religious protection on this forum. So, apparently, your test is not one of the tests that the religion mod uses.
Grand Wizard of Scientrilogy .... It’s important that we help them choose a name with pizazz
***Well, that one has some pizazz. Good writing.
So who gets to decide which ones are doing that?
***The mod for whichever section the thread is posted to. The crevo threads degrade into cacophany, while the ecumenical threads are more of a success in terms of civility. The religion mod has built himself a toolset that the other mods haven’t, and it’s available to those of us who consider scientism/naturalism/whateveritisismwithPizazz to be a religion can access those tools.
That's because up until now they've all been discussions about religion - they were posted in the appropriate forum in the first place.
Now you're talking about throwing in threads about any number of subjects unrelated to religion - the only common denominator is that they are topics that people tend to get "vehement" about. If people who monitor other forums for threads on those topics aren't monitoring the Religion forum, they won't know those threads exist. People who do monitor the Religion forum will now start seeing threads about all sorts of other unrelated topics in that forum.
That’s because up until now they’ve all been discussions about religion - they were posted in the appropriate forum in the first place. Now you’re talking about throwing in threads about any number of subjects unrelated to religion - the only common denominator is that they are topics that people tend to get “vehement” about. If people who monitor other forums for threads on those topics aren’t monitoring the Religion forum, they won’t know those threads exist. People who do monitor the Religion forum will now start seeing threads about all sorts of other unrelated topics in that forum.
***Well, I’ve seen ping lists for the crevo threads, so it looks like even though it was posted in the right place, some of the arguers need help in finding these discussions. This section would be no different.
The assertion is:
No, just those who try to stifle debate and expression of facts that don’t conform to their agenda and demand dogmatic allegiance to their side. That’s something most evoluts do and what few creationists would never attempt to.
Do the religion moderators have a dictionary with a definition of "dogmatic" that produces the result of only one side ever being "dogmatic"?
***Well, that one has some pizazz. Good writing.
Now explain this business of not being "antagonistic" again. The semantics of this aren't lining up with reality at all.
I took it from people who are Protestant and they said that they feel it is unfair to them that they, as Reformed Christian, need to protest Catholicism in order to be true to the Reformation.
I realize that there are Protestants who view Catholicism as just another denomination. But you cannot deny that Luther and especially Calvin built their confessions on denying Catholic dogmas, and they constantly referred to them polemically in their writings.
I'm still not on board with telling other people what their religion is for them, particularly if it's an exercise in trying to turn a perjorative into a religion as a form of personal attack.
The major departure from what appears to be considered a "religion" so far is that up until now it appears that every other religion has self-professed adherents. You're proposing to assigning that religious belief to them, without any requirement that they profess a belief in or even have a definitive description of the precepts of that religion. Is that something we're going to start doing, and where will it stop?
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.