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.
Interesting question. This could be the only time in Free Republic history where Scienschism is a cult but not a religion.
However, any of them may have a religious aspect and be appropriate for discussion on the Religion Forum.
For instance, if a poster's beliefs are tied to numerology, he should be able to discuss that on the RF.
For the moment, I'm going to submit that, given the number of various sects and denominations of Christianity that do believe in Old Earth and/or evolutionary theories, and are still considered of the Christian faith the term "schism" is more accurate and less unnecessarily divisive than the term "religion".
Yes it was because I refused to respond in kind to a prolonged barrage of combative replies and insults couched in cut-and-paste quotes which are apparently protected. Lest this sound like a whining complaint I know my choices; a. put up with it. b. not participate. Choice b. would be my choice as I think would be the choice of most people. Why participate in a discussion where you have to walk on eggshells while the other party gets special dispensation to skirt the rules?
Well I just tried to find "Freeper Lexicon" in the forum's search engine and all I found was this moldy old post from 2001 explaining what pings are:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/574593/posts
I can honestly say I've been on FR for almost a decade and I have no idea what "BMFLR" and "RTFAB4UP" mean, maybe because I neve post on "ecumencial" threds. If someone would like to point me to WHERE exactly this is "explained" on FR I will be happy to look it up and get back to Kevmo with a responce (of course it would have been far easier if he just told in this thread, as I do when newbies ask "what is a RINO?")
I re-read his post #1 on this thread to make sure I was following the gist of his ENTIRE proposal and not "selectively reading" certain parts. Well after reading it in detail, I can say with absolute certainly that his original "should scientism be considered a religion on FR?" post does NOT clarify whether he is proposing that members VOLUNTARILY be allowed to select their religion on these boards from a drag-down menu on FR, or whether they INVOLUNTARILY get their threads and profile labeled "scentism religion" in the religious forum due to posting a envolution-friendly topic. I support former idea, and oppose the latter idea. All Kevmo said in his original post is that this would deal with ecumencial threads and that it would involve "tags". Perhaps he clarified somewhere within the next 400 posts exactly what system he had in mind, but I don't see why he can't repeat this information to my inquiry and instead accuse me of ignorance if I missed his "explanation" that was buried around post #253 or so. Kevmo created this thread, but he wants members to navigate it like a maze to participate in the topic?
Besides, it seems Kevmo is also engaging in "selective reading" when I posted the criteria in which I use to judge whether someone is a Christian and whether they believe in evolution in post #404 (and explained how I meet both criteria)
What this boils down to, (and what Kevmo hasn't answered) is simply whether Kevmo is willing to concede that there are many freepers who believe in evolution and who are good practicting Christians -- basically that there are people here who believe Darwin's theory is the means in which life evoluted on earth and they are nonetheless Catholics/Protestants/Orthodox Christians/Non-denomial-Christians/Mormons/Jews, etc. in good standing.
Others have alledged Kevmo wants all Christians who believe in evolution to be labeled as members of a "Scentism" religion on FR, and Kevmo refuses to say if that is his intent or not.
Bottom line: If Kevmo can concede there are many freepers who believe evolution are (fill in the blank religion) and not members of a "scientism" religion, I will consider his proposal seriously. If not, I'm wasting my time on this thread.
I'm not sure about "BMFLR". "RTFAB4UP" is easy enough to figure out, and I'm pretty sure it's not something you normally see on "ecumenical" threads (Read The ******* Article Before You Post).
Bottom line: If Kevmo can concede there are many freepers who believe evolution are (fill in the blank religion) and not members of a "scientism" religion, I will consider his proposal seriously. If not, I'm wasting my time on this thread.
That's why I think "schism" is more appropriate than "religion". It recognizes that this is a point of contention among various faiths, but doesn't try to define it as your religion.
Bottom line: If Kevmo can concede there are many freepers who believe evolution are (fill in the blank religion) and not members of a "scientism" religion, I will consider his proposal seriously. If not, I'm wasting my time on this thread.
I think in this post and in this post Kevmo clarifies his thoughts on those points a little bit.
It sounds like you’re pretty selective in your approach, perhaps because of an adilpated manner in which you follow random hits. You can seem to find the lexicon from 2001 but not from 2007, and for a decade you’ve never seen the lexicon.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1877220/posts
For instance, you say, “I re-read his post #1 on this thread” but anyone can see that post #1 says: “Threads & links to follow.” You obviously didn’t read post #3, and if you had gotten current on the situation you’d have seen that by post #12, “To: All
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.” So you skipped over the part where you come up to speed on the issue, even when it was spoon fed.
It’s very frustrating to have to bring people up to speed who approach things in such a haphazard fashion. After looking at #427, the answer to my question in #413 appears to be: Not Much. There is no basis for the certainty that you claim, and it is easily refuted just by reading through this thread. At least we have some common ground; both of us have the same concern — we don’t want to waste our time on this thread.
Now that I’m done with my browbeating, if you have any concerns that have not been addressed in this thread, I’ll be happy to address them.
Why participate in a discussion where you have to walk on eggshells while the other party gets special dispensation to skirt the rules?
***Both sides have to walk on egg shells. If there’s special dispensation going on, bring it to the RM’s attention. The rules are a bit hazy. For instance, I had a post removed from an OPEN religion thread and yet some flamebait material has been kept on this Ecumenical thread.
http://blog.barofintegrity.us/categories/Free%20Republic.aspx
But it’s easy to be critical when we’re not the ones doing the job. For the most part, the RM has done exemplary work, which is why I’m trying to leverage the success of his efforts.
That’s why I think “schism” is more appropriate than “religion”.
***We’ve all gone round & round on whether or not naturalism or scientism or secularhumanism or whateveritism is a religion. My main interest in determining if it’s a religion is so we can use that name as a tag to create an ecumenical tag. If “schism” is allowed, then all of that discussion about whether or not it’s a religion was just a red herring, as I suspected. Because we all know that schism ain’t a religion.
It recognizes that this is a point of contention among various faiths,
***Good, glad to hear it...
but doesn’t try to define it as your religion.
***Straw argument.
(Read The ******* Article Before You Post).
Obviously, F stands for Freeping ;-)
Either one is subjective, and whether a schism results in a separate religion or not seems a matter of degree. Either one would accomplish establishing a premise to support having the tag. If it's just about having a tag then either one should be acceptable and the one that's more likely to produce consensus preferable.
If just getting a tag to use is the "red herring", and the actual objective is to get it labeled a religion then only "religion" will do.
On second thought “trojan horse” would probably be a better term than “red herring”.
If it’s just about having a tag then either one should be acceptable and the one that’s more likely to produce consensus preferable.
***Fair enough. What do you think of the Scienschism hybrid? The cool thing about using invented words is you get to invent the definition as well. If we find a definition that we both support, then we could apply it to such a term.
It looks schizophrenic.
It looks schizophrenic.
***So does schism. Got any other suggestions? No one else seemed to comment on the Naturalism tag.
Evidentialism?
Mystery Babylon?
Root word of Science: Knowledge
Root word of Technology: Knowledge
Root word of Mystery: Knowledge
Root word of Babylon: Knowledge (Tower of Babyl = Tower of Knowledge)
Plausibilitism?
Nascent?
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.