Posted on 06/14/2008 8:25:27 PM PDT by Yomin Postelnik
Hi everyone,
I'm just wondering if anyone had this experience before. I wrote a column about the proof of the existence of a Divine Creator (see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2029192/posts ) and am now getting google stalked by an Atheist Group in Austin, in addition to phone calls and emails.
I'm not going to stop saying/writing what I believe or stop speaking out against these tactics, but was wondering if anyone here had experience and knows what to do about google, etc. I know some of us may disagree on the issues, but I don't think there's much debate about these tactics.
The full story of what happened is available here: http://creationistsearcher.wordpress.com/2008/06/15/on-the-lies-and-harassment-tactics-of-martin-wagner-and-russell-glasser/
And every single one of these demonstrations involves a human mind.
Which of course proves that it is religions that are against free speech
After all, what does a caucus mean? Does it mean that you have to prove you are a member of the LDS to comment in the LDS caucus? No, it means you can not disagree with what is being said. If you do, it is assumed you are not a part of the caucus.
I suggest that a scientific method caucus would be useful in that it would prevent the superstitious from polluting the discourse. It would also be suitable on the religion thread in that it meets your definition of a belief system. Faith and science are just two different episimological paradigms.
I, however, wouldn't find the caucus very useful. Those of us passionate about evolution would become the ridiculous characitures that Ben Stein accused us of being. We would exclude the people who question the science.
I think the whole idea of caucuses is probably unamerican, but definitely unFReerepublic. There are many Catholic and LDS, and Jewish forums on the net.
This is my favorite ID argument. It's a dishonest catch 22. IDer/Creationist ask for experimental proof, but all such proof involves an experimenter and hence involves a creator/designer so it is tossed out. Of course, the same person who demands proof of scientists is absolutely prepared to accept old myths without any proof
It’s quite interesting that you can’t post any of that here where you are making your complaint.
Moderators and participants. I set guidelines for the Religion Forum and enforce them, but all moderators have authority on all forums, including the Religion Forum.
Many churches hold services behind closed doors.
Moderators and participants.
***Well, at least on the participant side, you have me and the 2 others you mentioned who would like to see a similar setup in the Science threads. I think it would be nice to see fewer threads getting hijacked.
I set guidelines for the Religion Forum and enforce them,
***Okay, that makes sense to me. This particular thread appears to be an atheism thread and it would seem to fall under your purview.
but all moderators have authority on all forums, including the Religion Forum.
***That part does not make sense to me.
It's something of a relief to hear that the official position of FR is that science is not a religion.
Now if FR would only follow through with the obvious policy that starting religion based flamewars on science threads is trolling.
FReerepublic isn't a church.
These caucuses are a liberal concept. We already have rules against, racism, profanity, and personal attacks. The caucus is a new rule protecting the freedom not to be offended. Conservatives are always against such rules. Ask Mark Steyn.
This thread is not under the Religion Forum guidelines because it is not posted in the Religion Forum.
It’s something of a relief to hear that the official position of FR is that science is not a religion.
***Not to me.
Now if FR would only follow through with the obvious policy that starting religion based flamewars on science threads is trolling.
***It seems easy enough to set up. Have 2 “separate but equal” threads, one with the science tag and the other with some kind of religious discussion tag.
This thread is not under the Religion Forum guidelines because it is not posted in the Religion Forum.
***Good to know. Yomin, what was your original intent?
I may stray off the science reservation occasionally. I think any ideology can function psychologically as a religion. That includes political ideologies, mysticism, pseudoscience — whatever.
Science is indeed an enterprise made up up human individuals, and any large list of people there will be some who are quacks, some who are criminal, some who are nuts, some who dabble in areas for which they have no expertise. This also applies to religion, and the list of people professing faith in a creator God.
So my request is simply to remove comments from science threads that are not relevant to the objectives and methodologies employed by science. It would still be possible to have lively debates — just not flame wars in which the argument devolves into attacks on the morality of the participants.
By your logic a surgeon couldn't remove a bullet from a patient without knowing the make of gun that fired it.
The word evolution is about change not origin. Change can be studied without regard to origin.
my request is simply to remove comments from science threads
***And my request is to have such comments preserved, as long as they are allowed. People want to discuss this stuff, so let them. There appears to be enough interest from both sides to have serious science-only discussion on one thread, and science/philosopy/religious implications discussion on the other, so we could use this caucus/ecumenical tag system as the template to move forward with that kind of system.
I think any ideology can function psychologically as a religion. That includes political ideologies, mysticism, pseudoscience — whatever.
***I agree. You also point out earlier that “It’s something of a relief to hear that the official position of FR is that science is not a religion.” These two thoughts seem to be opposed. Why would you find it such a relief if you also know that such “idealogies can function as a religion”?
If "vigorous defense" is the definition of religion I guess belief in the 2nd Amendment should now be considered a religion.
Luke 6: 27 "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic.
30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you. 32"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. 33And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. 34And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full.
35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
Agreed, but sometimes the process that's being used to proclaim something a "religion" starts to look an awful lot like the process Congress uses to determine what's "interstate commerce".
If you’re being attacked, you must have done their ideology tremendous damage.
Praise God!
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.