The Religion forum

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by Sorcerer, Jan 10, 2014.

  1. Sorcerer Put a Spell on you Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    856
    I'm new here so forgive me if this subject had already been discussed, but why is there a religion forum on a science site? It seems to attract religionists who then go on to cause havoc and devastation elsewhere, like the comparative religion forum.

    I would suggest canning it entirely.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    Some of us believe that science and religion are compatible. My views are that telepathy leading to a mass consciousness are real based on over 20 years of studying the topic and experimentation. I may not believe in any particular religions, but if I had to choose I would pick Buddhism, Hindu, or Ancient Greek religions as my front runners.

    Here is an example of thinkers who view god/science as compatible. Walter Russell Discovered elements and even said Plutonium must exist in 1926. Had he been believed World War II could have been prevented (just a thought).

    [video=youtube;-WjSC99ih9Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WjSC99ih9Y[/video]


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq_TF_K604c
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVRxC7U_2kQ

    However ...

    This type of thinking has little in common with biblical teachings of any religion.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    856
    I thought religion was a matter of belief, that if you're not brought up with it, as most are, then there is a conversion process, a Damascene moment, when everything becomes clear?

    Surely it can't be a logical choice, as in, what about Buddha, oh yeah I get that, but the Hindus do this, that sounds better, and the Mohammed get top marks......

    You are making the choice of an irrational belief sound like a rational choice?
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Even if they aren't compatible, religious beliefs affect society and science funding, interfere with science education, and make claims about the world which can be tested by science.
     
  8. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    @ Sorcerer,

    I was not religious in my youth. I was atheist.

    In my teens I read a book that suggested telepathy experiments between friends. This led to 30 years of study into the subject in which I have replicated experiments from that book and many more.

    The problem with telepathy and many PSI experiments are that humans are the obtuse measuring devices. There will never be a way to prove telepathy with experimentation involving people. Even if a perfectly replicable experiment could be devised the sender or receiver could drop dead by chance and ruin it. No. Probabilities only rule this realm.

    So then I became an atheist who believed in telepathy.

    Now try to explain telepathy in any universal theory and you are looking at Mass Consciousness as a likelihood (if we are all communicating by minds).

    I think it is logic that brought me to these conclusions.

    I think that belief/expectation can affect our reality which is a common theme in the religions I did mention.

    Thought affecting reality is likely mostly in tune with a new age religion called "Law of Attraction"

    i.e.
    Watch how this person brought a Movie Role into her life. She did not LIFT A FINGER to make her movie role a reality until it was (Magically drawn) into her life. Thought alone she credits for this.

    Note: Do you think this Multi-Billionaire chose to reveal this for profit?

    [video=youtube;mw8r70Hxx8s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw8r70Hxx8s[/video]

    Anyways. This is not the religion thread, but in answer to your OP you can see where there is room to debate this.

    In another thread I recently compared telepathy to radio waves.

    Is it prudent to assume our knowledge of the Universe is now complete as those who ridiculed radio and air flight had thought?

    Read my Moniker for answer...
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    I agree. I wonder what would happen if I walked into the local church tomorrow and started to blaspheme the name of their God.
    What would be the reaction?

    I don't believe religion here has anything to do with science/religion compatability.
    I do believe they can be compatible, [Father George La-Maitre] but the less intelligent religious folk that sometimes stalk this forum [like the pseudoscientific trolls, and the conspiracy nutters etc] do not have compatibility in mind at all.
     
  10. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Does that include Dawkins?
     
  11. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,647
    It's been discussed over and over and over...

    Probably for the same reasons that there are 'Science & Society', 'Ethics, Morality and Justice', 'World Events', 'Politics', 'Business and Economics', 'History', 'Free Thooughts', 'Art and Culture', 'SciFi and Fantasy', 'Alternative Theories', 'Parapsychology', 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters', 'Conpiracies' and 'Pseudoscience' forums.

    Atheists are attracted too, and they are typically just as ignorant and ill-informed as their opposite numbers. Whatever havoc might ensue is the result of endless back-and-forth ego-battles, and we see that happening on most of Sciforums' fora. I mean, just look at 'politics'. (I consider that forum to be an absolute shit-hole.)

    Actually the 'religion' forum seems to host better discussions than 'comparative religion'. I'm still not sure why there are two religion fora. Presumably the motivation at some point was to separate the more academic and scholarly discussions from the incessant atheist/theist battling. But it doesn't seem to have worked out that way. It probably can't, because so few Sciforums participants have any real exposure to the academic study of religion. Discussions on Sciforums are always going to be lay-people's discussions. That's not necessarily a bad thing. If it's fun, and if it's occasionally even educational, then what's the harm?

    Unless that's accompanied by an entire redesign of Sciforums that includes the elimination of all the non-scientific fora, that idea would just seem to be an expression of atheist intolerance.

    I'm going to repeat something that I said before:

    The religion forum has arguably been the most intelligent forum on Sciforums. I mean that quite seriously and quite literally.

    Religious discussion is much more open to lay participation than scientific or mathematical discussion, since so much in science and mathematics is initially counter-intuitive and often requires years of university study before anything of real substance can be said. Discussing religion doesn't presupppose specialized education in religious studies, theology or the philosophy of religion in quite the same way. Everyone already has some experience with religion, has some exposure to it, and has views about it.

    It's true that many of our Sciforums participants are more or less established in their broad 'atheist' or 'theist' positions. Christians aren't likely to stop being Christian through reading Sciforums, and atheists aren't likely to suddenly start believing in God. If anyone is expecting those things, they are unrealistic expectations.

    What does happen though, and anyone who reads the religion forum can easily see this happening, is that both theists and atheists grow in their views and become more sophisticated as they try to respond to the views of their opposite numbers. What our moderators don't always understand or appreciate is that rather sophisticated philosophical and theological issues are often raised during the course of these discussions. And they are being thought up by intelligent and creative laypeople themselves, they aren't being imposed by teachers on high. There's an intellectual dynamism in the religion forum, as people try their hardest to craft and critique arguments, that's enjoyable to watch and to participate in.
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Dawkins gives what he gets.
    Although his personal style is rather abrasive as far as I am concerned. I prefer the equally but more sedate approach of Carl Sagan.
     
  13. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    I think the religion forum is a necessary evil, especially on a science site. The reason for that is because those religionists can post their beliefs and arguments for all of us to see, therefore allowing us to learn what those beliefs are and how they came about. This is the way we can expose those beliefs for what they are and in doing so, educate others to see how nonsensical and irrelevant they are in the face of reality. This will serve to dispel those beliefs as myths and superstitions and hopefully eradicate religions from the world and the conflict, hatred and intolerance they teach and cause.
     
  14. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,123
    Unfortunately at the moment it has become subject to rather spurious moderation by a new moderator seemingly keen to flex their new powers.
    It seems if you cross the path of either him or anyone he favours then the thread will be closed, irrespective of the validity of the post you are making.

    Pity, as such moderation will only serve to drive people away.
     
  15. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Yes, I just notice Syne closed the "Soul" thread citing this reason:

    "Thread closed due to repeated trolling and straw man arguments."

    Syne could have just left the thread alone rather than trolling it and offering straw man arguments.
     
  16. Sorcerer Put a Spell on you Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    856
    Sorry I don't know how the quote thing works.
     
  17. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,133
    It's much easier if you go into the advance option of posting. That way, you can highlight the part you wish to quote and click on the quotation box icon and it puts the highlighted part in the quotation box.

    Alternatively, you can just type it out. Say you wish to quote something.

    [/quote] - type this out at the end of the sentence, paragraph of passage you are quoting and

     
  18. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,104
    Something to aid in the future should you attempt to quote an example without it iterating as a quotation.

    Use "Colour" (color) to break it up....:

    [quote]this isn't iterated[/quote]

    The following is why:
    [[color=black]q[/color]uote]this isn't iterated[[color=black]/q[/color]uote]
     
  19. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,647
    He seems to become emotionally involved in threads, getting frustrated and angry when people disagree with him.

    My own view is that moderators should be more concerned with style than with content. If somebody is habitually rude or insulting, maybe they should be called on it. If posts are totally off-topic or are bizarre and irrational, moderators might need to step in. But they certainly shouldn't place their thumb on the scales to favor certain conclusions in discussions, by moderating people who disagree with their views more heavily than those who agree.

    That doesn't mean that moderators shouldn't argue as forcefully as they can for whatever their views happen to be. It just means that they shouldn't let their own participation in threads bias their moderating. Human beings being what they are, that's hard to keep straight sometimes.

    Yeah, I thought that the existence of the soul thread was a pretty good thread. It raised all kinds of interesting issues, including the definition of 'soul', the relationship between 'soul' and 'psyche', the qualia arguments (an orange and the taste of an orange), issues concerning evidence and burden of proof, what presuppositions might be inherent in psychology and cognitive science, and more. These are the kind of things that are being discussed in the professional literature and I think that it's very cool that a bunch of laypeople thought of them for themselves, just by arguing about the problem from various angles. That's something that should be encouraged on Sciforums in my opinion, not something to be suppressed.
     
  20. Sorcerer Put a Spell on you Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    856
    Thank you Bells and Stryder. I will try that.
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,376
    ...or you can use the handy "noparse" tag:

    [noparse][noparse]
    [/noparse][/noparse]

    results in

    [noparse]
    [/noparse]
     
  22. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,104
    Ah yes, didn't have them back in the day

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    @ James R & Stryder,

    Bit off topic.. ( realize this is a how to use quotes thread, but...)

    Why have a zealot as Moderator there?
     

Share This Page