Posted on 06/30/2008 4:41:23 PM PDT by Kevmo
The crevo threads typically degenerate into name calling. Recently, the Religion Moderator declared that "science is not religion", and did not publish the criteria for such consideration. My suggestion to the evolutionist community has been to acknowledge that Scientism is a religion and start to utilize the protections offered under the religion tags that are different than other threads (due to the intensity of feelings over religious issues). So this thread is intended to be an ECUMENICAL thread under the tag of SCIENTISM. The intent is to keep discussion civil.
I would like to see a straightforward discussion over the topic of whether scientism should be treated as a religion on FR. I'll try to find the links to the adminlecture series about what the ground rules are on ecumenical threads, and I'll copy some recent interactions that show the need for scientism to be treated as a religion on FR.
Faith: Belief that is not based upon proof (I would say evidence when speaking of Science).
There are some cool prayer threads on Free Republic.
SCIENCE? If Caesar existed or not has nothing to do with the Scientific method. It has to do with History.
***And it is the science behind all that history which is being denied when the history is denied.
All we have is the words that people wrote about him and the objects they made with his image and his own writings and commentaries.
***That’s all we have for any historical figure. Note that there are ~20,000 manuscripts that talk about Jesus and his ministry, whereas for Julius Caesar there were 11 manuscripts. That’s a strong preponderance of evidence — the science behind it is sturdy.
OK, so we do not ONLY have the words of Jesus, we also have a few comments by a single Jewish writer sometime after his death.
***Wrong. There are lots of other writers. This is demonstrable from historical texts — and, outside of the purview of this thread.
Other than that we have no physical or historic evidence for Jesus.
***I have lots. Feel free to open a thread to discuss that matter and be overwhelmed with evidence, certainly a “preponderance of evidence”.
There are absolutely no Roman records saying why Jesus was put to death, or even that Jesus was put to death. Of course absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
***Wrong. Feel free to open that thread. When it is demonstrated that your assertion here is incorrect, will you be coming back here to correct it? I certainly commit to the opposite action if I’m wrong. There have been other threads about the historicity of Jesus here on FR. It’s all good reading. Best wishes.
If you base your faith in Jesus Christ our Lord on physical evidence you are putting a lot of weight on some rather scant shards of evidence. I base my faith in Jesus the Christ on the Bible and my faith that it is the word of God.
***My faith journey demanded that what Jesus said about faith being as small as a mustard seed be true. Once one looks at all the evidence for the historicity of Jesus, it really is a matter of small faith to accept it.
When I start out talking about Jesus, I ask people, “Do you think he was a good man or a bad man?” They invariably say he’s a good man, if misunderstood or somesuch nonsense. And I say, “that’s all the faith you need to accept Him.” Once one realizes that it is historically provable that Jesus claimed to be equal with God, it’s just a matter of deciding whether he was a good man or a bad man — and they’ve already addressed that one.
If you’re willing to use the definitions I provide then we’ll stick with the 2 first hits on Dictionary.com and move on.
It looks like this experiment in ecumenism is working out pretty good, the discussion is civil so far. I need to hit the hay for the night.
Counting the number of manuscripts is “science” that is “sturdy”? You really have absolutely no idea what Science is. Science is based upon theory and experimentation. Science can be performed upon objects like the Shroud of Turin or a statue of Caesar to see if either object is actually old enough to be contemporaneous, but that is not the same thing at all.
So you not only think Science is Religion, you also think it is History? Anything else you want to throw in there?
I did use the definition you provided.
Faith: belief without proof
Scientism is based on faith.
Based on a biblical worldview, I believe the evidence clearly points to the world being around 6,000 years old.
God is sovereign
Man is sovereign (man earns his salvation)
Except for Buddhism.
I believe the word you're searching for is "schism". You are proposing using the Religion forum to sort, label, and catalog the schismatics, according to your religious beliefs, and to sequester them there and get them out of the public square.
How did starlight from objects some hundred million light years away get here in time for us to see it. If we see the flash from a dying star from over six thousand light years away then that star never actually existed and the light from it showing its dying moments, was all a lie and an illusion. The God I believe in isn't a liar.
Before I answer your post, I need to know that the post will still be there when I’m done and that my response post won’t be yanked as well, wasting my time. So I’m asking the religion moderator to determine if your post follows the guidelines of ecumenical threads — it has an antagonistic tone. I’m disappointed, because the discourse had been civil right up until then. If your post survives, I’ll respond to it.
Guidelines:
Ecumenic threads are closed to antagonism.
To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.
Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenic” thread can discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.
More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical fact and a legitimate subject for an ecumenic discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.
Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.
Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenic” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.
Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenic” tag.
Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.
Based on a biblical worldview, I believe the evidence clearly points to the world being around 6,000 years old.
***Have you read Alamo Girl & Betty Boop’s book? It’s very informative in terms of your world view. I go to Peninsula Bible Church and one of the pastors (Paul Taylor) in a recent sermon talked about this kind of outlook and said, that while he couldn’t say much about the physics, “the theology was spotless”.
Again with the antagonistic tone.
If you’re okay with using the definition I provide, then use the definition I provide now and be done with it. Holding onto a loaded definition is evidence that you’re going down the path of disruption, which is not allowed on ecumenical threads. It’s perfectly okay to use such tactics on open threads, and we’ve all seen the result — mush.
I believe the word you’re searching for is “schism”.
***Nope. It doesn’t fit.
You are proposing using the Religion forum to sort, label, and catalog the schismatics, according to your religious beliefs, and to sequester them there and get them out of the public square.
***Nope. You need to read the thread before you post this kind of stuff. This is an ecumenical thread, where such antagonism and loaded definitions are frowned upon. I stated my goal right up front, and that is what I’m proposing, regardless of any straw argumentation and mindreading you may wish to employ. What would be your goal, with such an antagonistic tone?
Can you explain why not? It appears to be entirely consistent with the criteria you're using for "whateverism".
I believe you've stated your goal is to reduce the vitriol that frequently becomes an issue on "crevo" threads. Would you entertain suggestions about what you might be able to do to help accomplish that without moving the treads to the Religion forum, labeled as "Scientism"?
“All the worlds religions can be boiled down into two religions: [1]God is sovereign [2] Man is sovereign (man earns his salvation)” ~ Matchett-PI
“Except for Buddhism.” ~ TigersEye
Not so. Buddhism is a man-centered, works-based religion.
Man may earn his salvation (nirvana) by performing certain works. This may take him several re-births before he is able to get rid of his ignorance. As soon as he gets rid of his ignorance, he achieves salvation and no longer has to be re-born so as to have more time to work on reaching nervana.
Buddhism was founded by Siddhartha Gautama in the 6th century BC.
Nirvana is the natural result that accrues to one who lives a life of virtuous conduct and practise in accordance with the Noble Eightfold Path.
Rebirth in Buddhism is the doctrine that the consciousness of a person (as conventionally regarded), upon the death or dissolution of the aggregates (skandhas) which make up that person, becomes one of the contributing causes for the arising of a new group of skandhas which may again be conventionally considered a person or individual. The consciousness arising in the new person is neither identical to, nor different from, the old consciousness, but forms part of a causal continuum or stream with it. The basic cause for this persistent re-arising of personality is the abiding of consciousness in avidya (ignorance); when ignorance is uprooted, rebirth ceases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)
Buddha’s last recorded words were “Decay is inherent in all component things! Work out your own salvation with diligence.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism
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.