Replies

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?

Particularly with regard to theology and philosophy, such conduct is almost never stupidity or mendacity. It is most always a matter of belief.

For instance, member(s) of confession A may aver repeatedly that members of confession B are in danger of hellfire due to its assertion of doctrine n. Absolutely no evidence to the contrary by a member of confession B will convince the A posters that it is their confession which is in error as to the truth of the matter. The only solution is for both sides to make the argument – respectfully - for the umpteenth time in the hopes that some passers-by may be persuaded.

Since posters behave this way over doctrinal issues, why would they behave any differently where their doctrines intersect with science?

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.

There are a number of moderators all of whom have the power to move a thread and we operate with a stare decisis understanding among ourselves. For instance, when one of us moves a thread or makes a decision to remove or not remove a post or poster - the others will try not to disturb the decision.

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?

With a few exceptions (anti-Semitism, supremacists and the ilk) - I do not purge condemnations of theologies or philosophies or theories or authors or religious leaders – only condemnations of other Freepers.

Here is where definitions get in the way. For the scientist, the term "faith" has no bearing on a scientific theory such as gravity or evolution. The theory is nothing more than a model describing observed phenomena and related facts.

OTHO, there are many that view a theory of science in the very same way that faith is viewed.

Thusly, the arguments get heated because the scientist is promoting a pure natural view of the theory whereas the non-scientist is adding a faith component to the theory thusly tagging it as anti-God or bigotry.

So why has science been hijacked to the religion forum, where the arguments and methods of science are not respected?

It makes no sense to argue science with apologetics. You have said yourself that no statement is too stupid to be believed by someone.

But this isn not how science works and how science reasons. Once a stupid idea has been discredited by facts, it will never come back in the same form. At the level of specifics, it will never come back at all.

ok, so -if I understand you correctly- one could safely assert in trumpeting boldness, with no fear of repercussions from the Mods, on a religion thread, something along the lines of...

"All variants of [creed X] are pure bunk, so much and so obviously so that belief in any thereof seems the very definition of abject ignorance and certifiable lunacy"?

...irrespective of what "creed X" might be specified as being?

as a side note - "Particularly with regard to theology and philosophy, such conduct is almost never stupidity or mendacity. It is most always a matter of belief" is essentially irrelevant when the -ah- "habitual poster of inaccuracy" is making patently false statements concerning verifiable empirical data.
It's a nice excuse, for philosophers, but does not cover those who blatantly and demonstrably misrepresent facts.