Latest round of posts on this issue:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2038708/posts?page=175#175
To: tacticalogic
But in order to get the same kind of protection from religious zealotry that other religions get by opening caucus and ecumenical threads, you have to acknowledge that it is a religion. I, for one, don’t have any problem with scientism being called a religion and treated as such — it might put an end to the continuous flamewars on the crevo threads. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, flies like a duck and isn’t a goose, it’s probably a duck — so it might as well enjoy the benefits of a duck’s life by calling itself a duck.
164 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 2:46:47 PM by Kevmo (A person’s a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Kevmo
But in order to get the same kind of protection from religious zealotry that other religions get by opening caucus and ecumenical threads, you have to acknowledge that it is a religion. I, for one, don’t have any problem with scientism being called a religion and treated as such — it might put an end to the continuous flamewars on the crevo threads. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, flies like a duck and isn’t a goose, it’s probably a duck — so it might as well enjoy the benefits of a duck’s life by calling itself a duck.
Why? If the reasons for limiting what is considered acceptable civil debate in discussing theology over in the Religion forum are valid and reasonable then you should be willing to adhere to them in any forum if you are discussing what you perceive to be religion, regardless of whether anyone else does or not. If you aren’t willing to accept that as reasonable here, what reason is there to believe you’ll accept it somewhere else? Moving the “crevo” threads to the Religion forum won’t stop the flame wars, it’ll just move it over there and the Religion mods don’t seem to want it. I can’t say I blame them.
165 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 3:03:18 PM by tacticalogic (”Oh bother!” said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: tacticalogic
Why? If the reasons for limiting what is considered acceptable civil debate in discussing theology over in the Religion forum are valid and reasonable then you should be willing to adhere to them in any forum if you are discussing what you perceive to be religion, regardless of whether anyone else does or not.
***You’d think that was true of any religion, but it’s not. Hence, the ecumenical and caucus threads. The religion of scientism would be no different in that regard.
If you aren’t willing to accept that as reasonable here, what reason is there to believe you’ll accept it somewhere else?
***Because the rules for ecumenical and caucus threads are very clear, and the kinds of comments that the evolutionists don’t like to see would be thrown out by such rules. See, they would get what they want. All they gotta do is admit it’s a religion.
Moving the “crevo” threads to the Religion forum won’t stop the flame wars, it’ll just move it over there and the Religion mods don’t seem to want it. I can’t say I blame them.
***The religious flame wars do not continue on caucus threads. They continue on the open threads, which is how things oughtta be.
166 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 3:08:34 PM by Kevmo (A person’s a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Kevmo
Are there any tactics or forms of attack that are not permitted (”mind reading”, attributing motivation, etc.) on “open” threads in the Religion forum that aren’t particularly restricted here?
167 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 3:12:07 PM by tacticalogic (”Oh bother!” said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: tacticalogic
Yes. That’s what the caucus threads are for.
168 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 3:13:00 PM by Kevmo (A person’s a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Kevmo
There are no restrictions about engaging in those kinds of tactics or personal attacks in the Religion forum, except on the caucus threads?
169 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 3:15:39 PM by tacticalogic (”Oh bother!” said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: tacticalogic
Something like that, you might want to read through the rules about caucus & ecumenical threads. It’s probably one of the adminlecture series.
170 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 3:23:50 PM by Kevmo (A person’s a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Kevmo
Something like that, you might want to read through the rules about caucus & ecumenical threads. It’s probably one of the adminlecture series.
Don’t worry about the caucus and ecumencial threads.
Are there any rules about what’s considered acceptable civil debate in the Religion formum in general that are more stringent that what’s generally applied outside of that forum?
171 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 3:30:49 PM by tacticalogic (”Oh bother!” said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: tacticalogic
I have no idea.
172 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 3:33:37 PM by Kevmo (A person’s a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Kevmo
Get one. The RM’s don’t want it over there because they don’t want the flame war. You come in to “crevo” threads, call everything you disagree with a “religion” and then attack it and the other posters with terms and tactics that aren’t considered civil in a serious theological discussion. If you don’t understand and respect the limits they’ve put on theological discussion in that forum, I doubt you’d adhere to them over there any better than you do here.
173 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 3:42:42 PM by tacticalogic (”Oh bother!” said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: tacticalogic
What are you talking about? Is this thread an example? Where does it call itself a crevo thread? It’s about religion.
You come in to “crevo” threads, call everything you disagree with a “religion”
***Baloney. And maybe you should get an idea.
and then attack it and the other posters with terms and tactics that aren’t considered civil in a serious theological discussion.
***If they’re open threads, then your kind of tactics are allowed. If they’re not open threads, your kind of tactics are not allowed. You are engaging in projection here, kiddo. Interestingly enough, such tactics would not be allowed on a caucus thread.
If you don’t understand and respect the limits they’ve put on theological discussion in that forum, I doubt you’d adhere to them over there any better than you do here.
***You are the one who doesn’t understand the limits that have been put on theo discussions, otherwise you wouldn’t be asking such basic questions.
Hasta la vista, you may have the last word.
174 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 3:53:29 PM by Kevmo (A person’s a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Kevmo
What are you talking about?
I think you know exactly what I’m talking about.
175 posted on Monday, June 30, 2008 3:56:14 PM by tacticalogic (”Oh bother!” said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
"Scientism" is a fabrication of creationists' minds, much as are "Darwinism" and "evolutionism."
They are all designed to demonize an enemy so that it makes it easier to hate them.
I will not be participating in this thread.
I can’t find the thread where the ecumenical tag was first introduced.
The world is older than 6,500 years by mutiples of thousands. This isn’t a religious belief. Its high science.
“Scientism” isn’t a good term. You could use “Freethinkers”, “Nontheists”, “Skeptics”, or maybe “Brights”. “Skeptics” may be the best option, because it allows a distance for the members of the group when posting to the religion forum. What would be the point though? I would imagine that there would be threads like “10 reasons why God is a prick and Jesus was gay [Skeptic Caucus]”. I’m not even sure that FR is equipped to handle the current situation in the religion forum. I don’t think it is wise to invite even more vitriol here.
First, "scientism" is a distortion of science but it is not "science." Second, while it may be a belief system, not all belief systems are religions. Maybe scientism is a political ideology. Third, is this really worth it? To what end?
My experience is that the "theistic evolutionists" here on FR are "deists," since they seem to reject the very possibility of a supernatural revelation (such as what happened at Sinai) out of hand even as they claim to believe in "gxd." Maybe they should just be called "deists," except that would leave out the atheists and agnostics who are every bit as hypocritical and every bit as fanatical.
Aspire!
Ecumentic Thread=> Limited Debate=> Protected Status
If some can achieve it, why not Scientism?
It seems to me that any system of thought that postulates the way to determine truth is “religious” in the senses that it depends on principles that are not empirically verifiable.
Here is what the Constitution says about religion:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....
no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Here is what the Constitution says about Science:
The Congress shall have Power...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.
You haven’t really defined what you mean by scientism.
Do you really mean evolutionism?
There are so many true scientific disciplines that do not engender the deep philosophical biases that are usually best described as religion. Do we really want to call them religion? I don’t.
Excellent idea.
How do you guys pray?
Scientism is based on faith.
Based on a biblical worldview, I believe the evidence clearly points to the world being around 6,000 years old.
Torah and science work fine for me.
Scientism makes claims on the fundamental nature of reality dealing with metaphysics and philosophy of mind that are unsupportable by science. It’s a belief system.
A religion? I don't think it's even a word.
Why not? Just as goofy as all the rest of em.
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.