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.
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 a "trojan horse", and the actual objective is to get it labeled a religion then only "religion" will do.
And apparently, only "religion" will do.
A restatement from you is answered by a restatement from me:
I’m starting to notice a tactic, perhaps a logical tactic, in which freepers nitpick and try to wear down the other freeper with whom they disagree. I think it is a form of antagonism, a pretty crafty one at that. Basically, if someone who disagrees with me really does want to common terms, I’m all for it. But when the discussion drones on and on, with all kinds of other issues getting dragged in, it’s a sign for me that the person doesn’t really want to reach compromise.
***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.
434 posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2008 9:51:05 PM by Kevmo
It was "fair enough" then. What changed?
What changed?
***I used the scientism tag on the new thread. You couldn’t even remember what your objection to scientism was, so it was obviously not that strong. I haven’t changed in my positions, concerns, nor interests. If anyone changed, it was you. Not that it means all that much, but my patience is getting low. If you want to arrive at a mutual definition using a new term, then we can re-engage on that if you wish. There would appear to be no difference to the Vehemence tag, so I’m weary of going ‘round in circles.
448 posted on Thursday, July 10, 2008 1:08:41 PM by tacticalogic
I really didn’t have any objection to the tag, just the designation of “religion”.
***Then I can continue to use the tag.
Discussions about designation of religion can continue on this thread as well. It sounds like much of your objection would be something to discuss with the religion moderator. It’s not very likely that you’ll change the way that I think on the subject, so that end of it is a timewaste.
There are several different categories of freepers who are involved in crevo threads. There are the atheists who already have a tag. There’s the nascientischism/whateveritismists who now have a tag. There are christisans, catholics, mormons, buddhists, etc. who obviously have a tag. So it’s not like your viewpoint isn’t represented by a tag, your objection appears to be that a tag is being generated on the nascientists’ behalf because they’re not inclined to generate it themselves. Well, that’s something between you and the religion moderator. There are plenty of freepers who think this nascientism thing is an emerging religion. If that isn’t enough for you, then your beef is with the religion moderator. Any catholic who accepts the theory of evolution can log onto a scientism tagged thread, so the objection to this system pretty much covers a very minute slice of freepers and I only have so much patience for such a small audience.
It's not going to be represented by a tag on these "ecumenic" threads you start. In fact it's purely hypothetical whether anyone's is.
It’s not going to be represented by a tag on these “ecumenic” threads you start. In fact it’s purely hypothetical whether anyone’s is.
***Then what is your religion? Doesn’t a tag exist for your religion? When someone opens an ecumenical thread under their own religion, other religions are invited, so it’s all inclusive. Your objection appears aimed at a very small sliver of freepers, perhaps really just yourself.
No, that's between us. You're a little too big to be hiding behind nanny's skirt.
You’re a little too big to be hiding behind nanny’s skirt.
***With personal snides like that, there’s no ecumenical basis to continue this discussion. Such things are commonplace on open threads, which is why they degenerate into mud.
The objection is to the absence of any concrete theological basis for the tag. The argument is over creation doctrine - something that nearly every religion has, and which varies among various Judaeo-Christian religions. Characterizing what is basically a doctrinal disagreement as a separate religion is inherently divisive, and antithetical to an ecumenic discussion.
Our discussion is over. Even your objection is aimed at a very narrow slice of participation in terms of freepers, so I’m not inclined to address it any more. Thanks for your participation.
Have a nice day.
What’s wrong with science as religion
Salon.com ^ | 31 Jul 08 | Karl Giberson
Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2008 12:54:12 PM by AreaMan
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2054432/posts?page=1
What’s wrong with science as religion
Piercing a Communion wafer with a nail and throwing it in the garbage, as one crusading biologist recently did, does science no favors.
By Karl Giberson
Hello Religion mod:
I recall this experiment we had several years ago with the ‘scientism’ tag. It was quite successful.
I also found where I started discussing Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR), even in this thread.
For the last couple of years I’ve been opening threads on LENR but they have attracted their own versions of disruptors and stalkers. I’m thinking of starting a couple of LENR threads under the old ‘scientism’ tag to get the discussion civil.
Would you be okay with that?
As you can see, the stalkers are invigorated.
Was it your experience that I previously wanted “to use the religion forum to prohibit discussion” or was your experience that it generated some good discussion? My motive for opening this thread in the beginning was to reduce vitriol; my motive remains the same.
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.