science is a word I like.

[Dj_StarChild]

I didn't really think this ought to go in the discussion forum, because it's not actually a discussion, but rather a suggestion FOR the discussion forum.

I wonder why it is that when there is a ban on religious discussion, threads which have potential for religious discussion are closed, even when there is also a potential for good, legitimate scientific discussion to continue.

Why don't the people who are inclined to argue against evolution, or physics, or big bang theory, simply...not post things like "that's not true because the bible tells me so." (jesus loves me!)
Forgive me for not giving a more realistic example.

Why do we not limit these discussions to scientific and philosophical viewpoints, and simply tell people who would get all religious on the hizzy to stay out of it?

It is VERY easy to discuss big bang theory without arguing that it never happened because it's not mentioned in the bible. You can argue an ALTERNATIVE (yet non-religious) scenario for the beginning of the universe, you can argue infinite regression, you can argue that the big bang happened, you can argue that the big bang wasn't the beginning, but rather part of a cycle, you can argue all kinds of nutbar crap.

So, in summation, I feel that we are forcing the discussion forum into stagnation by an ineffective system of censorship. If there must be censorship, that censorship does not have to take away EVERYBODY's fun.

(What's that you say? you didn't realize that the discussion forum was supposed to be fun? Neither did I, until I declared it to be so.)

Why don't we just admit that we would prefer to use a scientific paradigm only in the discussion forum, in order to reduce the risk of flame wars caused by religious discussion? Apparently it is impossible for people to argue for religion without getting all uppity? Or maybe it's the other way around, dear chillens.

Now, I urge SOMEONE to take note of this post, rather than being told to mind my own business and to let the mods do their thing. I love you too, mashirosen.

absolute power corrupts absolutely, apparently.

I would like to be able to have good discussions on these topics with the people I know here, and I am perturbed by the immediate (or not so immediate) closure of threads involving these topics.

[ZERO.]

It's because no matter what people get a little uncomfortable when people talk of religion or anything like that, no matter what you believe.

[Dj_StarChild]

point: censor religion, not discussions that religious people don't agree with.
They're not the same thing.

[pictish]

Just a general thing about 'fun'.

From your other posts, it seems you have an idea of the discussion forum including far more light hearted posts, and people to generally be far more lax about... well, everything.

I've been lurking around for a while (and started posting more recently, I guess), but I personal like how the discussion forum is. Those who debate, perhaps you'd say in a robotic fashion, are exactly what I'm looking for when I go there. This arises from 'fun' being entirely arbitrary.

Seeing people make a case, having that analysed, counter analysed etc etc helps me get a better understanding of a subject and know the central issues and more about it from different view points. Few arguments may 'end' with a 'winner', but often it becomes clear who I personally agree with more. This sort of thing is brilliant, I find that "Fun".

If the disucssion room changed and became more lax, there'd be so much less of that, which'd be ashame. Points would be hidden beyond humour (instead of humour lightly illustrating points for us.). If i want the "fun" of humour or more relaxed discussion, I'd head to the appropriate part of the forum.

As for this whole religion thing, see, discussing things from a religious perspective while not discussing religion seems to have two central problems here. Going with the lightest problem first:

People will not understand the rule. Or simply ignore it. Too many religious types are ready to go on a soapbox at the drop of a hat, and too many atheists are raring to go at the first chance they get also. Getting that close to religion without touching it... I think that'd be impossible. While the moderators can enforce the rule when it is broken, they are not omnipresent (I hope >.> which has the downside of the probability that threads will be derailed beyond repair.

Furthermore, unless I've misunderstood, the greatest problem seems to be that the discussion forum is for either to discuss a serious issue, giving viewpoints or to have an issue brought forward to be debated (though a topic can switch between these rather quickly). The thing is though, if I'm arguing with someone, I can't just say 'nuh-uh!" I'd have to say why I find their argument to be flawed. From there, my argument (should) be an alternative that does not rely on the part of their argument I find flawed. If, therefore, we allow religious reasons to be brought forth "because X is a sin" and so on, then we run into a problem. I might then disagree, and have to explain I do not agree because this is a rule imposed through a religion which I find incorrect for X reason. Then they, if they wish to defend their point, have then to defend their religion, and oops.

See, so if religious people make arguments with their religion as justification, than we'd have to argue about the validity of their religion, as the point is directly tied to it.

Unless I've misunderstood, of course.

Edit: Ok, I think I did get the wrong end of the stick. That'll teach me to half-skim.

Anyway, as the big bang thread clearly displayed, my first point is true. Give people a small inclination of an exuse to argue about religion and it seems to just flow out. It only lasted five pages before it broke into a religious debate, if I recall correctly. That in itself is likely why these threads don't come up often.

(Though I do agree it's ashame)

[P-Sleazy]

Originally Posted by Pictish

If, therefore, we allow religious reasons to be brought forth "because X is a sin" and so on, then we run into a problem. I might then disagree, and have to explain I do not agree because this is a rule imposed through a religion which I find incorrect for X reason. Then they, if they wish to defend their point, have then to defend their religion, and oops.

Except you see, there's more than one way to say "Because X is a sin" without implying religion. You could say, "because X is looked down upon by society", "Because I don't beleive X to be a very honorable thing for such and such reasons (honor code and such)", or "Because X is(should be) against the law (for said reasons that don't involve religion)"

Take Polygamy for example. Just say that its being very unfaithful to your spouse and that marriage is between one man and one woman, as stated by the law (in most states anyways), and not one man and 3 women.
And the other side- Some states say Polygamy is legal

Perfectly viable arguements right there that would most likely been religious, and explained why without using religion as a reason. Now yes, there may be some other topics that may not be so easily explained (or countered with) without having to use religion, like the Big Bang Theory. All I have to say to that is let the people have thier discussion. You're not gonna convert them, so let them have thier fun argueing it.

[Dj_StarChild]

Originally Posted by pictish

From your other posts, it seems you have an idea of the discussion forum including far more light hearted posts, and people to generally be far more lax about... well, everything.

The hard-ass attitude the mods have around here would be a little more respectable if they were open to satirical pokes and prods. They're not (well, krylo is, but he wants my 'suck'-ulent man-wang.)

Originally Posted by pictish

Seeing people make a case, having that analysed, counter analysed etc etc helps me get a better understanding of a subject and know the central issues and more about it from different view points. Few arguments may 'end' with a 'winner', but often it becomes clear who I personally agree with more. This sort of thing is brilliant, I find that "Fun".

Sure, but I don't see why anyone should have to take a standpoint that is not their own, and unsubjectify it in order to be able to make a post without being accused of being biased. Why can't you be biased? If you're not biased, you're not a person, you're an expository report.

Originally Posted by pictish

If the disucssion room changed and became more lax, there'd be so much less of that, which'd be ashame. Points would be hidden beyond humour (instead of humour lightly illustrating points for us.). If i want the "fun" of humour or more relaxed discussion, I'd head to the appropriate part of the forum.

I'm not saying that there should be a place for completely unrelated jokes. I'm saying that posts should be allowed to have humour which 'illustrates lightly'. Currently, I don't consider the discussion forum to be a place where humour of any kind is welcomed without a guarded 'Oh no, shiney's going to eat me!' attitude to follow.

Originally Posted by pictish

As for this whole religion thing, see, discussing things from a religious perspective while not discussing religion seems to have two central problems here. Going with the lightest problem first:

I'm suggesting that there should be a rule which eliminates the use of religious perspectives altogether. It is nigh impossible to have a religious perspective and not talk about religion when it comes to a subject that religion generally disagrees with (unless you're willing to suspend your disbelief, or to suspend your belief as the case may be). I feel that topics which could provide a good scientific or philosophical discussion are ruined because of the potential for religious interference, or because of religious interference, when it is already clear that religious discussion is not allowed.

My question is: Why are people posting religious viewpoints, if their viewpoints are not allowed? Granted, there are two sides to this coin, the other of which I have been glossing over, which is that it takes a non-religious person to argue against the religious person. However, if no religious viewpoint is expressed, no argument between the two can occur.

Originally Posted by pictish

People will not understand the rule. Or simply ignore it.

Theoretically, those people should be warned and or banned, depending on the frequency of their offenses. (Not to suggest that we ban them because of their beliefs, but rather because they refuse to follow the rules that have been set out, in order to stave off unwanted hostility between forum members.)

Originally Posted by pictish

Too many religious types are ready to go on a soapbox at the drop of a hat, and too many atheists are raring to go at the first chance they get also.

well, maybe 'too many people' should pay attention to the rules, or face the consequences.

[

Originally Posted by pictish

Getting that close to religion without touching it... I think that'd be impossible. While the moderators can enforce the rule when it is broken, they are not omnipresent (I hope >.> which has the downside of the probability that threads will be derailed beyond repair.

Big bang theory is not exclusively a religious or scientific topic. I already showed how it can be a topic argued not from extremes in my original post. Of course, I'm not just talking about big bang theory, but it should be possible for people to discuss evolution, and theories about it without having someone jump in and say 'It never happened because the bible says this!'

Originally Posted by pictish

The thing is though, if I'm arguing with someone, I can't just say 'nuh-uh!" I'd have to say why I find their argument to be flawed. From there, my argument (should) be an alternative that does not rely on the part of their argument I find flawed. If, therefore, we allow religious reasons to be brought forth "because X is a sin" and so on, then we run into a problem. I might then disagree, and have to explain I do not agree because this is a rule imposed through a religion which I find incorrect for X reason. Then they, if they wish to defend their point, have then to defend their religion, and oops.

I have already explained that this is not a system I'm proposing. I am proposing the omission of any and all religious under or overtones, which though less specifically stated in the rules, is still a rule which is policed by pre-emptively closing threads(sometimes post), rather than warning the individuals who break the rules. I'd rather be called a biggot, than see a necessary rule be broken consistently, if fear of being accused of biggotry is the reason.

Originally Posted by pictish

See, so if religious people make arguments with their religion as justification, than we'd have to argue about the validity of their religion, as the point is directly tied to it.

Again, I am saying that religious people are NOT ALLOWED to make arguments with their religion as justification, and therefore should hush up, if they please (though I doubt they do...).

Originally Posted by pictish

Anyway, as the big bang thread clearly displayed, my first point is true. Give people a small inclination of an exuse to argue about religion and it seems to just flow out. It only lasted five pages before it broke into a religious debate, if I recall correctly. That in itself is likely why these threads don't come up often.

And I wish Krylo, or SOMEBODY would issue warnings, or reprimands rather than simply closing the thread, and saying 'HAH!, not likely.'

something to think about: Posts about scientific theories that contradict religion are not threads that should entice religious people to post in them. And yet, it happens anyway. Go on, infer my underlying malice.

[Long-Haired Narcissist]

Originally Posted by pictish

The thing is though, if I'm arguing with someone, I can't just say 'nuh-uh!" I'd have to say why I find their argument to be flawed. From there, my argument (should) be an alternative that does not rely on the part of their argument I find flawed. If, therefore, we allow religious reasons to be brought forth "because X is a sin" and so on, then we run into a problem. I might then disagree, and have to explain I do not agree because this is a rule imposed through a religion which I find incorrect for X reason. Then they, if they wish to defend their point, have then to defend their religion, and oops.

Ok, since someone could say that X is against their religion, couldn't they just as easily give specific objection. To just say "The bible says that's wrong" instead of justifying a belief just promotes blindly following a book as opposed to using proven facts and theories in a debate.

[Bells]

Also... if its not on wikipedia, its wrong and Evil...

...smart people should understand my comment... or not...

[Melonwheels]

You can't have a discussion on religion and science because no one in it is going to be convinced and admit that their lives have been a lie. About as good to discuss as circumcision. And abortion. If someone's killed someone else over it, it's iffy.

Someone killing for foreskin... isn't that what the Middle-East is all about? The foreskin illuminati...

[Azisien]

If this was a petition I would probably sign it. In the past I've been a little peeved when people hop into a thread, say something religious, and we're not able say anything because it's either furthering the discussion on something religious or flaming, but there is little or no enforcement.

The Church of Atheism demands equality!