New Mod for Religion Subforum

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by Balerion, Nov 27, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    That's you out, Mazulu.

    Anyone who wants to be Religion moderator, apart from Mazulu, please send your application in green crayon to:

    James R
    The Pina Colada Suite
    Sciforum Towers
    Skinnydip Bay
    Northern Territories
    Australia
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Sorcerer Put a Spell on you Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    856
    I think we need an athiest in the job. They could ban everyone which would be a good solution since this is a science forum.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,046
    There Is a Solution

    Oh, it's easy enough. Just rename the subforum "Theology". As near as I can tell, we haven't done so already because it would be unfair to atheists; indeed, I'm told expecting people to acknowledge the scholarly record of historical, anthropological, psychological, and sociological literature pertaining to religion is an arbitrary standard, and apparently unfair to atheists.

    The "Religion" subforum is one in which people take it to mean, "Let's talk about religion". There are a couple such subfora at Sciforums, in which the purpose is, ostensibly, political campaigning in lieu of substantial discussion. Changing the name to "Theology" would inherently demand some substantial discussion and respect for the established record, clearly a bigoted sleight against our atheistic neighbors. Well, at least to hear them tell it. I still don't get what it is about the social sciences in which refusing the entire scholarly record in order to insist on one's own convenient redefinition isn't crackpottery, but neither am I the enlightened type who believes in the sort of eye-for-an-eye hatemongering some of our atheistic neighbors so ferociously demand.

    To the other, as a supermoderator, I haven't exercised a whole lot of authority in the Religion subforum in recent years because it has long been clear to me that maintaining an atheistic-sympathetic hate forum has been tacit site policy. That is to say, prior backroom discussions about the Religion subforum generally don't get far. Much like Politics, it seems the whole point of the subforum is to do away with academic rigor, scholarly discussion, and source document records so that people can get all ugly and shout at one another. Psychologically, yes, it's healthy to have a vent, but the fact that a vocal advocate of atheistic hatemongering opened this thread is something of an ironic twist. In truth, I doubt our topic poster would appreciate the effect of stricter moderation.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    lol
     
  8. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    and the proper term for all religion is theology.
     
  9. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Wow, what a crock.
     
  10. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    You understood that?
     
  11. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    No, this is a crock:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    A crock is an ugly purple shoe.
    I've learned something.
     
  13. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Yup. Criticizing an ideology is hatemongering...unless that ideology is one Tiassa disagrees with, in which case then it's fair not only to criticize the ideology but to make sweeping generalizations about the adherents themselves.

    In other words:

    Christianity is bad for society = Hatemongering

    Atheism is bad for society, and atheists are hatemongering liars as well as hypocrites and idiots = True fact.
     
  14. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Sorry, I replied to the wrong post. I thought I was in the Spring Fashion subfora.
     
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,046
    Some Things Are Obvious

    A couple of quotes from a recent discussion:

    "I mean, what's so hard to understand about 'Religion insults us, so we should be able to insult them?'"

    "When he says, 'I reserve the right to insult religion,' what do you suppose he means? Are you really unclear on the target of his insults?"

    In scholarship, there is a word to describe someone who dismisses the established, scholarly record as irrelevant and arbitrary in order to insist on one's own definition, especially when the supporting evidence for that personal definition actually contradicts the definition.

    When people stand up in defense of crackpottery on the pretense of the propriety of hatemongering, it's not hard to figure out what's going on.

    None of this, however, denigrates the proposition that some sort of change is necessary in how we've conducted the Religion subforum over the years. It's just that it is quite clear that any sort of scholarship in our discussions of religion is quite unwelcome. You argued that crackpottery trumps the scholarly record: "Why, because he hasn't discussed the criteria you arbitrarily set for him?" To the one we have a scholarly record. To the other, we have a personal definition not even supported by the dictionary definition offered in support. Tell us again, sir, which standard is arbitrary?

    I'm reminded of a time twenty years ago, in Salem, Oregon, when we nearly got in a fight with an anti-Semite who really wanted to go rounds with my "Jew" friend; we couldn't stop laughing as I told his drunk wife that a Star of David has six points, not five. The Dragon, blessed be, had the decency to not engage the man in physical combat, since the result would have been tragic. Still, though, setting aside the question of what one country bumpkin from east of town thinks about any particular group of people, it still cracks me up that the guy had no idea what he was trying to lay his hate on.

    We can easily subsume Theology as a child forum to History, and Comparative Religion—a related but distinct study—either as anthropology under a Human Sciences parent subforum, or as a philosophical endeavor as a child to the General Philosophy subforum.

    If, on the other hand, we are to reserve a Religion subforum for the purposes of hatemongering, we might as well just scrap it entirely.
     
  16. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,428
    um no thats a croc
     
  17. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Except none of it applies when referencing a term colloquially. When someone asks you how big your bird is this Thanksgiving, you don't demand that they give an accounting for what constitutes a bird. You knew exactly what they meant

    And it's just as easy to glean the motives behind making non-sequitur generalizations about atheists, and the disappearing after several people take up the challenge you claimed no one would take up. It's about slinging shit, first and foremost. And when your shit-slinging backfires, you run for the hills.

    The point was that it was unnecessary in the present discussion, not that scholarly discussion had no place in the forum itself. This point clearly wasn't lost on you, as you failed at every attempt to address specifically why such a dialectic was necessary for the topic at hand.
     
  18. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    No it's not, both terms are used to describe that style of shoe.
     
  19. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Best be sure. Misspelling of fashion items is precisely why we need a new Religion moderator.
     
  20. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    the forum should be renamed to "theology and society".
    the discussions should be about historical aspects of theology and its effects on society.
    specific mention of individual religions should not be allowed.

    edit:
    in my opinion the following should not be allowed:
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ns-does-God-do-and-is-that-ok-with-Christians
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?137088-Care-to-compare-the-Jesus-you-know-to-the-one-I-know
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?136289-Any-atheists-here-who-were-once-believers
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?137191-Should-Christians-judge-God
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...-visit-Lumbini-like-Muslim-should-visit-Mecca
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...-say-that-Christians-are-to-be-slaves-forever

    and i didn't even get off the first page.
     
  21. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,834
    Well, it's nice to see an impartial, unbiased moderator for a change. I wonder what's going on in reality?
     
  22. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    How can anyone have a discussion about the effects of theology without discussing religion?

    Why not? Because they're critical of Christianity?
     
  23. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    theology of the time in question, for example of 1400AD.
    what was the effects on society at that time?
    individual religions will have differing effects and its these that should be discussed.
    i suppose that one religion could be discussed but only in a historical sense, how one religion has varied over the years for example.
    i didn't read the threads, just looked at the titles.
    if the threads do not fit what i explained then they should be removed.

    let's take 2 examples:
    the witch hunts.
    what exactly led to this and what result did this have on the population at the time.

    lobbing off hands.
    ditto.

    in both cases the religion is irrelevant, only the effects are noteworthy.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page