Posted on 09/18/2006 1:51:27 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
So the posters argue as if the differences are a matter of life and death for everyone – because in their minds, it is. Many if not most of them believe it is their commission in life to spread their particular doctrine. And none of them are likely to change beliefs.
Very true. Unfortunately, the same people bring those notions with them when they participate in the science threads -- especially, but not limited to evolution threads. Such posters aren't there to discuss science, of which they know nothing and care less, but only to profess their religious creeds.
Rather than moving such threads into the religion forum (as was done here) perhaps it would be better if religiously-motivated, anti-science people were told to stay off the thread (but gently, of course, as you mods are famous for doing). That's common practice in other threads, but it's never yet been done in a science thread. It would help a lot in preventing flame wars.
The entire point of evolutionism to assert that the universe is entirely random and that all morality is ultimately situational.
God may exist, but he has completely abandoned the universe to its own devices.
The attitude that rejects divine creation necessarily rejects divine intervention in the world.
I beg to differ. One of the standard creationist bullet points is that science is merely another sort of religion. By declaring that methodological naturalism - the foundation of science itself - is to be treated as a theological belief, you are effectively declaring that the official position of FR is that the creationists are correct in this assertion, that science is in fact merely another sort of religion. However, having given away the farm, you will generously permit the debate - what's left of it, anyway - to continue.
No thanks.
Nevertheless, your idea for avoiding crevo flame wars is among many which have been considered - and will continue to be discussed - among the moderators.
...and the reply I get is:
This is what happens when dating outside yer own race is allowed to occur.
I'm totally at a loss.
I don't know how to respond to this.
Agreed! But it's not difficult to distinguish between the mere profession of faith, to which no one objects, and the obvious disruption of a discussion which was not intended for the religion forum.
Nevertheless, your idea for avoiding crevo flame wars is among many which have been considered - and will continue to be discussed - among the moderators.
I'm delighted that this is under consideration. Please trust me in this -- because I know the crevo threads very well -- it would be an enormous help. There are fewer than a dozen disruptive regulars. They don't discuss science. Well, they discuss it by routinely declaring that it's all fraud, that it leads to Hitler, to homosexuality, etc. Very easy to spot. A few well-placed "Stay off this thread!" posts from the mods would be a blessing!
I agree with this. I think the whole crevo debate is an enormous red herring.
The entire point of evolutionism to assert that the universe is entirely random and that all morality is ultimately situational.
Interestingly, all morality is indeed "situational" in a sense; ie, it is morally wrong to kill when killing is forbidden by G-d, but it is immoral not to kill when killing is commanded by G-d. "Rationalists" object to this situation and call its advocates "religious nuts" on the supposed grounds that "reason" is actually more solid, more unchanging, and less arbitrary. But the fact is that any source of morality must, by the very nature of things, be in some sense "beyond good and evil." And in fact there is no exception to "the usual rules" on the authority of G-d that cannot be made on the authority of "reason" as well.
Atheists and "non-interventionist" Theists tell us that "you don't need G-d to have morality." What is this but an admission that reason can justify anything that G-d can? G-d or no G-d, it's still wrong to kill or steal, they tell us. This simply means that you don't need G-d to sit in judgement on others and sentence them to years of being caged like animals (and homosexually raped) or else fried in the electric chair (a form of capital punishment contrary to the decrees of the "cruel and primitive" Jewish G-d). In either case even the most libertarian non-Theist is justifying the loss of liberty or life by others. How is this any less arbitrary than the decrees of G-d that say when a person may not be killed and when he must be? (BTW, the "primitive" G-d also deals with theft via restitution rather than caging people like animals for years of homosexual rape).
Honestly, you'd think these rationalists believe that as someone is about to be fried in the chair the thought that the world is a closed system of causes and effects somehow makes it all better.
Similarly, whether or not G-d exists human nature is human nature. There will still be wars--both wars of aggression based on the evil inclination and defensive wars. Either way thousands will be killed, property will be destroyed, and whole civilizations will suffer. And "reason" is quite capable of justifying both sides. This being the case, how is getting rid of G-d going to create a world without war? I thought Randians weren't mealy-headed believers in the malleability of human nature?
Perhaps the best example of how reason can justify anything that G-d can (for people who insist that morality exists regardless) is the issue of torture. In our own days we have had "civil libertarians" like Alan Dershowitz (a card-carrying ACLU-nik, no less) explaining that sometimes torture is sadly justifiable when it can save countless lives. There was a time when the "torture" card was the trump card of rationalism, but it seems that the source of morality, whether G-d or reason, can justify anything. (Ironically, the "primitive, bloodthirsty" G-d of Israel forbids torture for the simple reason that confessions are inadmissable as evidence even when voluntary, and I [FR's most notorious "religious nut"] was practically alone among FReepers in rejecting this rationale advocated by the "good Zionist" Dershowitz.)
In short, "religious people are nuts" and "you don't need G-d to have morality" are mutually exclusive statements, since morality will always be determined by something beyond morality and will be able to justify anything, no matter how contrary to "usual procedure." In this sense, all people who believe in morality are "nuts," so the carping of the anti-Theists and deists dissolves into self-contradiction.
God may exist, but he has completely abandoned the universe to its own devices.
The attitude that rejects divine creation necessarily rejects divine intervention in the world.
The fantastic thing is that people will accept this idea while nevertheless maintaining that the "non-interfering" G-d spoke at Sinai or became incarnate and worked miracles, and they absolutely refuse to see the illogic in their reasoning.
And I thought us rednecks were supposed to be the dumb ones?
Establish a science category, and much of this repetitive nonsense from both sides will fade away.
If discussions of science are within the category of News/Activism, then where would a post regarding Christianity versus Islam and how it is impacting politics and war be categorized? In religion or News/Activism?
All logic points to isolating these discussions the same way blogs and personal and chat and religion has been. This topic is too devisive and is not pertinent nor even connected to conservatives winning and maintaining The House, The Senate, The WOT, Iraq, defeating liberalism, lowering taxes, reducing government, etc., all of which are the primary conservative activism issues.
The definition of insanity is trying to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. That is what we have been doing here for 7+ years on this issue, and I believe it is time for a change.
question: when a poster makes (a series of) false statement(s), is corrected by others, repeats the false statement(s), is corrected again and is shown in exquisite detail the depth of the falsity of his posts, and this person continues to post the same false statement(s), does this not constitute ample illustration of either that poster's incurable stupidity or that poster's deliberate mendacity?
and, as an aside - since you brought it up, if neither you nor PH put this thread into the religion forum, exactly who did? I still await an explanation of this ill-considered miraculous event.
"begging the question" in conjunction with an endemic and understood "appeal to authority"
hrmn... so, we can expect you to purge this thread of all iterations of broad declarations that "evolution is pure rubbish" et omnia generis alia, right?
surprise me: give me empirical evidence that you mean what you say.
Not true. A large number of my colleagues are leaving the Republican Party for this very reason. They feel that the conservative movement is anti science. If we continue to promote that view, we will lose a great deal of folks. This is the reason I debate on these threads. To let folks know that you can be a legit scientist and still be a conservative at the same time.
Ditto.
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.