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.
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.)
Religion Moderator’s home page,
http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/
How the threads are sectioned:
Prayer threads are closed to debate of any kind.
Devotional threads are closed to debate of any kind.
Caucus threads are closed to any poster who is not a member of the caucus.
For instance, if it says “Catholic Caucus” and you are not Catholic, do not post to the thread. However, if the poster of the caucus invites you, I will not boot you from the thread.
The “caucus” article and posts must not compare beliefs or speak in behalf of a belief outside the caucus.
Ecumenic threads are closed to antagonism.
To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.
Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenic” thread can discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.
More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical fact and a legitimate subject for an ecumenic discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.
Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.
Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenic” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.
Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenic” tag.
Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.
Open threads are a town square. Antagonism though not encouraged, should be expected
Posters may argue for or against beliefs of any kind. They may tear down other’s beliefs. They may ridicule.
On all threads, but particularly “open” threads, posters must never “make it personal.” Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of “making it personal.” Making a thread “about” another Freeper is “making it personal.”
When in doubt, review your use of the pronoun “you” before hitting “enter.”
Like the Smoky Backroom, the conversation may be offensive to some.
Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.
If you do not specify the type of thread, it will be considered “open.”
"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.
They are all designed to demonize an enemy so that it makes it easier to hate them.
***The purpose of this thread is not to demonize an enemy. The purpose is to have civil discussion over this issue.
The civil discussion part would definitely be a plus. Conservatives hold vastly different religious viewpoints.
Here is where some of this discussion took place:
Being attacked by Militant Atheist Group - Advise?
Yomin Postelnik
Posted on Saturday, June 14, 2008 8:25:27 PM by Yomin Postelnik
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2031294/posts?page=167
To: DaveLoneRanger; Religion Moderator
Thanks for the ping, Dave.
What comes to my mind is the religion moderator’s recent posting and discussion of the new rules on religion. It seems like he needs convincing that Atheism/Darwinism/Scientism/WhateverItIsm is a religion that should come under his purview at FR.
109 posted on Thursday, June 19, 2008 9:44:11 AM by Kevmo (SURFRINAGWIASS : Shut Up RINOs. Free Republic is not a GOP Website. It’s a SOCON Site.)
It was on this thread that the RM declared that “ science is not religion”. Then after that, some of the evolutionists started calling this the “official policy” of Free Republic, on other threads. I pinged the RM to have the criteria laid out for determining how it’s decided whether or not it’s a religion, and there was no response.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2031294/posts?page=116#116
To: Coyoteman; js1138; Kevmo; DaveLoneRanger
The request for a “science” caucus came from Coyoteman and js1138. The snag is that caucus protection only applies in religious debate on the Religion Forum (to provide safe harbor) and science is not religion.
So far there is no interest in allowing for caucuses outside the Religion Forum and no interest in allowing science to be considered a religion.
“Atheism” however is a belief (or non-belief) and has been successfully used as a tag on an ecumenical thread in the Religion Forum.
116 posted on Thursday, June 19, 2008 10:04:22 AM by Religion Moderator
The world is older than 6,500 years by mutiples of thousands. This isn’t a religious belief. Its high science.
The world is older than 6,500 years by mutiples of thousands. This isn’t a religious belief. Its high science.
***Thanks for the post. When this subject comes up, I’m always reminded of two excellent freepers and the book they wrote on this subject:
Don’t Let Science Get You Down, Timothy: A Light-hearted (but Deadly Serious) Dialogue on Science, Faith, and Culture by Jean Drew and Sandi Venable (Paperback - Dec 14, 2006)
Buy new: $19.96 14 Used & new from $19.18
Here is a sampling of where this issue was discussed on another thread. Now I feel free to discuss these issues with some civility expected from the participants.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2031294/posts?page=122#122
To: Religion Moderator; Coyoteman; js1138; Yomin Postelnik
The request for a “science” caucus came from Coyoteman and js1138.
***I posted essentially the same request.
The snag is that caucus protection only applies in religious debate on the Religion Forum (to provide safe harbor) and science is not religion.
***My perspective is that Scientism is becoming a religion. Look at how vigorously its adherents defend it. Look at the definition of a religion, and see if it applies. At the edge of our human knowledge, Scientism becomes a faith like any other.
So far there is no interest in allowing for caucuses outside the Religion Forum and no interest in allowing science to be considered a religion.
***No interest by whom? Moderators? Or participants?
“Atheism” however is a belief (or non-belief) and has been successfully used as a tag on an ecumenical thread in the Religion Forum.
***Glad to hear it. If Atheism is a proper tag for inclusion, it could also be a proper tag for exclusion on a caucus thread, similar to something like the catholics all talking amongst themselves about whether Mary was assumed to heaven and how to deal with vociferous critics on that issue. It seems like this should be some kind of caucus thread in terms of the atheism tag that you mention. Perhaps that’s what the original poster intended.
120 posted on Thursday, June 19, 2008 10:28:03 AM by Kevmo (SURFRINAGWIASS : Shut Up RINOs. Free Republic is not a GOP Website. It’s a SOCON Site.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Kevmo
Moderators and participants. I set guidelines for the Religion Forum and enforce them, but all moderators have authority on all forums, including the Religion Forum.
125 posted on Thursday, June 19, 2008 10:49:58 AM by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Soliton
Many churches hold services behind closed doors.
126 posted on Thursday, June 19, 2008 10:51:00 AM by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Religion Moderator
Moderators and participants.
***Well, at least on the participant side, you have me and the 2 others you mentioned who would like to see a similar setup in the Science threads. I think it would be nice to see fewer threads getting hijacked.
I set guidelines for the Religion Forum and enforce them,
***Okay, that makes sense to me. This particular thread appears to be an atheism thread and it would seem to fall under your purview.
but all moderators have authority on all forums, including the Religion Forum.
***That part does not make sense to me.
127 posted on Thursday, June 19, 2008 10:58:01 AM by Kevmo (SURFRINAGWIASS : Shut Up RINOs. Free Republic is not a GOP Website. It’s a SOCON Site.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Soliton
“ I believe we will be able to produce simple life in a laboratory soon based on the current state-of-the-art biological paractices.”
Then your faith is going to cause you great dispair. Your dream will never be. Its the faith of a fool.
141 posted on Thursday, June 19, 2008 1:03:19 PM by editor-surveyor (Jimmy Carter is the skidmark in the panties of American History)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: editor-surveyor
Then your faith is going to cause you great dispair. Your dream will never be. Its the faith of a fool.
I would rather live in honest dispair than as a deluded fool. Magic doesn’t exist. Ghosts don’t exist. Your beautiful dream is just a beautiful dream
142 posted on Thursday, June 19, 2008 1:45:46 PM by Soliton (Investigate, educate, then opinionate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Kevmo
Why would you find it such a relief if you also know that such “ideologies can function as a religion”?
It’s sarcasm. Regardless of what a particular moderator might say, science is continually labeled a religion on science threads.
Evolution is so labeled because its findings are inconvenient to some believers. Evolution sprang out of geology, so geology is also tarred with the same brush. Geology bases its ages on physics, so physics is tarred with the same brush. Trigonometry finds a minimum age for the universe to be 168,000 years, so mathematics is inconvenient to religion. There is no branch of science that has mot been thrown under the bus.
143 posted on Thursday, June 19, 2008 3:16:23 PM by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: TigersEye
If “vigorous defense” is the definition of religion I guess belief in the 2nd Amendment should now be considered a religion.
***It is not the only criteria for the definition, but it is certainly one of them. We see that the Religion Moderator determined that Scientism is not a religion, but we do not see what the criteria were.
144 posted on Thursday, June 19, 2008 3:38:48 PM by Kevmo (SURFRINAGWIASS : Shut Up RINOs. Free Republic is not a GOP Website. It’s a SOCON Site.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Kevmo
You should ask. I’m sure the McCainiacs would like to have criticism-free threads to promote their idol.
Onward 2nd Amendment soldiers! ;^)
145 posted on Thursday, June 19, 2008 3:43:31 PM by TigersEye (Berlin 1936. Olympics for murdering regimes. Beijing 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Soliton
Your faith is just a faith, like any other.
146 posted on Thursday, June 19, 2008 3:46:23 PM by Kevmo (SURFRINAGWIASS : Shut Up RINOs. Free Republic is not a GOP Website. It’s a SOCON Site.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: TigersEye; Religion Moderator
You should ask.
***OK, then I am asking. Religion Moderator, what is the criteria for deciding whether something is a religion? See post #116: “.... science is not religion.”
Even adherents in this thread acknowledge the faith element in this new idealogy, and admit that any idealogy can become a religion.
147 posted on Thursday, June 19, 2008 3:55:11 PM by Kevmo (SURFRINAGWIASS : Shut Up RINOs. Free Republic is not a GOP Website. It’s a SOCON Site.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Religion Moderator
The request for a “science” caucus came from Coyoteman and js1138. The snag is that caucus protection only applies in religious debate on the Religion Forum (to provide safe harbor) and science is not religion.
It’s something of a relief to hear that the official position of FR is that science is not a religion.
Now if FR would only follow through with the obvious policy that starting religion based flamewars on science threads is trolling.
128 posted on Thursday, June 19, 2008 10:59:47 AM by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Coyoteman; Religion Moderator
It is now official policy that science is not a religion.
***That happened on this very thread, in post #116, and it’s why I’m asking the moderator for his criteria in determining that policy. It seems ironic that the same folks who want protection using a caucus type of system on science threads are the ones who claim that it’s official policy that Scientism is not a religion, as if the Religion Moderator on Free Republic was the Final Authority on the subject of whether something is a religion.
Mark 4:22 “For there is nothing hidden but it must be disclosed, nothing kept secret except to be brought to light.”
1 Cor 4:5b He will bring into the light of day all that at present is hidden in darkness, and he will expose the secret motives of men’s hearts.
To: js1138; Religion Moderator
So my request is simply to remove comments from science threads that are not relevant to the objectives and methodologies employed by science.
***I see the religion moderator is quiet, possibly due to internal discussions with other moderators as to how to handle this thing. The fact that the atheism tag has been used successfully on an ecumenical thread is instructive. And it’s also instructive that the mod claims there’s no interest, and that it appears the impetus would come from the moderator as to whether he/she would even WANT to try to moderate such discussion (most likely NOT). So if you want to see flame-free discussions on scientific subjects, the impetus is likely to come from someone like you. When you post an article, you will likely get cooperation from the mods if you post it under the religion forum using a “scientism” tag or whatnot. Of course, it also means that whoever chooses to open discussion under such a tag has implicitly/explicitly agreed that scientism is a religion. Until then, it appears we’re all stuck with the existing system.
155 posted on Thursday, June 19, 2008 6:54:51 PM by Kevmo (SURFRINAGWIASS : Shut Up RINOs. Free Republic is not a GOP Website. It’s a SOCON Site.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
176 posted on Friday, June 20, 2008 10:36:09 AM by Kevmo (A person’s a person, no matter how small. ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Kevmo
No secret motives.
I am just tired of science threads being trashed by fundamentalists who interject their religious beliefs into non-religious discussions.
They have driven away a lot of scientists from this website. In the real world the same attitudes have driven away a lot of folks—whose votes are ever more critical—from the conservative cause.
I happen to believe that conservatism does not equal anti-science fundamentalism, and I am resisting that equation wherever I can.
OK?
177 posted on Friday, June 20, 2008 10:42:17 AM by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
I don’t understand why someone who does not believe in Creationism would go onto the Religion Forum threads and argue. They go by faith and you go by scientific theory.
If a thread is moved to the Religion Forum, why are you there? I don’t understand.
I’m not a creationist btw.
I have mentioned all of you in posts on this thread, so I’m pinging y’all. If I left anyone out, please ping them.
“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.
I don’t understand why someone who does not believe in Creationism would go onto the Religion Forum threads and argue. They go by faith and you go by scientific theory.
***When you say, “you go by scientific theory” do you mean me, Kevmo? Or do you mean the collective “they” as in creationists?
If a thread is moved to the Religion Forum, why are you there? I don’t understand.
***I don’t understand your question. This thread was OPENED in the religion forum with the prior communication of the Religion Moderator, to see if we can get some civil discussion on this issue, see if it’ll fly. I don’t know if threads get “moved” to the religion forum — the thread that Yomin opened up would NOT be moved to the religion forum because the Religion Moderator said that it wasn’t OPENED in the religion forum. So I gather this question is one for the moderator.
I’m not a creationist btw.
***I am a creationist btw. I used to be an evolutionist. My model for creationism is very much aligned with Alamo Girl & Betty Boop’s, at least as far as I can tell.
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?
Interesting quote, sounds like he nailed it.
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.
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.