So far there is no interest in allowing for caucuses outside the Religion Forum and no interest in allowing science to be considered a religion.
"Atheism" however is a belief (or non-belief) and has been successfully used as a tag on an ecumenical thread in the Religion Forum.
...no interest in allowing science to be considered a religion.
Thank you.
The request for a “science” caucus came from Coyoteman and js1138.
***I posted essentially the same request.
The snag is that caucus protection only applies in religious debate on the Religion Forum (to provide safe harbor) and science is not religion.
***My perspective is that Scientism is becoming a religion. Look at how vigorously its adherents defend it. Look at the definition of a religion, and see if it applies. At the edge of our human knowledge, Scientism becomes a faith like any other.
So far there is no interest in allowing for caucuses outside the Religion Forum and no interest in allowing science to be considered a religion.
***No interest by whom? Moderators? Or participants?
“Atheism” however is a belief (or non-belief) and has been successfully used as a tag on an ecumenical thread in the Religion Forum.
***Glad to hear it. If Atheism is a proper tag for inclusion, it could also be a proper tag for exclusion on a caucus thread, similar to something like the catholics all talking amongst themselves about whether Mary was assumed to heaven and how to deal with vociferous critics on that issue. It seems like this should be some kind of caucus thread in terms of the atheism tag that you mention. Perhaps that’s what the original poster intended.
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.
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.