Gaudere. Spiritus Mundi. Voyager. Darwin’s Finch. Sentient Meat. And there are others. They’re easy to recognize — they don’t demand that God be proven by science, and they don’t demand that gravity be proven by prayer. They know that science is an empirical epistemology, and doesn’t prove things like 1+1=2. They argue that there is a possibility God does not exist, rather than arguing that it is not possible that God exists. In other words, they’re familiar with the philosophy that underlies science.
What a bunch of whiners. Is there another board out there that can match this one for quantity and quality? Where everyone knows how to write a complete sentence? Where the most recent post isn’t from 2 months ago?
Well, I think the point some are trying to
I have to agree. How many threads do we have where the first couple posts consist of:
Which is too bad, I guess.
-Joe
I have been more of a lurker than a poster and have read these boards since at least 2000. I don’t find the boards as interesting as I once did probably because they are not new to me anymore. I have been through the “is there a God”, “global warming,” and “should we be in Iraq” debates and am not that interested in covering old ground again until and unless there are new developments. What brought me to this board was a search for all things Cecil. I don’t find him quite so exciting anymore either. Part of the reason is probably that many of the interesting questions have been asked, and can be readily looked up. You can only do “how many calories are there in sperm” once. Also Cecil does not seem to have the edge he once did.
Still, when I am looking for a range of intelligent opinions on some new idea or development I have come across, this is the place to be. I have always been impressed by the quality of the posts.
Does anyone track how new guests and members are drawn to this board? Is it word of mouth or are they drawn by something else? Are there other more successful boards that also use pay to post? I would like to see a greater influx of new people.
Some of us belligerent atheists do expect that a God that is concerned enough with the physical world to have either created it in 7 days and wiped it out with a flood or used the naturalistic approach but specially created humans and sent his Son to die for our sins lest we burn in hell to have some physical manifestations that are measurable in order to be believable.
It is against that type of god I tend to rail.
I think that the problem with debates about religion - at least, what I have learned from the SDMB regarding debates about religion - is that there can be no debates about religion.
Inevitably what happens after the initial offering of propositions and initial exploration of them, is that the person arguing religion will say that the issue is something that cannot be empirically explored, that it requires faith, or that the evidence for it rests solely in an individual experience that they have had.
Why start a GD on a topic that ultimately cannot be empirically examined? Why engage in debates that have an easily accessed trap door in them?
nongoog, as you’re no doubt aware, we don’t allow people to have multiple usernames, even if they don’t overlap. Please email TubaDiva right away (TubaDiva @ aol dot com) with the name of your past account(s), so she can straighten it all out.
Note that I recognize that you obviously weren’t trying to get away with anything (what with maintaining a paid account, and admitting to the past usernames), but I’ve got to suspend your account until you talk to TubaDiva. Don’t take it personally.
And, speaking as a poster now, I blame heavy-handed moderation for the decline of the boards. Dicks.
You are assuming such threads are always or even most often started by the person defending the position of religion. I don’t think that’s the case. My perspective is that if the underpinnings of my faith make it largely unassailable to “empirical examination,” too bad. But then, I don’t start threads trying to “prove” my religion, either.
Welcome, dude. We got cake.
??
I understand the need for keeping things proper and regular, but I do have to ask: Is This Necessary? Considering that it’s long ago over and done with, and, as you say, nongoog isn’t “trying to get away with anything”, what’s the pint of suspending the account only on nongoog’s say so? It seems a bit like a policeman arresting someone because they said that they’d smoked pot.
In my experience most of the debates on religion are started by atheists to the effect of “come on you spirit worshipping religious nutcases, give me ONE GOOD REASON to think there’s a God”.
Not that I don’t find those entertaining…
Well, I don’t think my argument particularly relies on that, but you have a point. It is less relevant to someone who comes along after the OP, but still, why enter a debate if all you can offer is “That’s just wrong because I know it is wrong.” Or, “My god is my cite.”
Zero Tolerance policies rarely seem logical. They generally exist to cover the backsides of TPTB.
Well, I don’t enter those debates anymore, preferring when I need a good strong headache to just bang my head against the wall.
But I used to wade in because people tend to throw around a lot of “Christians do this” or “Christians do that” (for “this” and “that,” insert any extreme or fundie belief you’d like, from Biblical literalism to wishing death on homosexuals – doesn’t even have to be a true, verifiable Christian belief), and I foolishly thought there was some value to attempting to point out that not all Christians believe that (whatever “that” is). But IME the anti-religionists around here are not actually interested in what Christians really believe. Instead, the discussions are exactly the type you posit: One where no person of religion actually participates and anti-religionist sit around agreeing with each other about just how horrible religion is and how stupid/deluded people of faith are.
But I don’t really see how you can call it a “debate” when you apparently would argue that one entire side is disqualified from participating at all.
I thought satan was your pal. They kind of go hand in hand.
I’m still plotting against the rest of you (and humanity), so I’m gong to say no.
Well, what Christians do and what they believe would be empirically identifiable, right? No reason not to debate that. Those sorts of things aren’t what I had in mind about the religion threads.
My point is that they disqualify themselves by deciding to pull the rip cord on debate and go with “it can’t be debated.” It isn’t me disqualifying them, it’s them disqualifying either themselves or the debate itself, depending on how you want to look at it.
But really, what kind of debate can you have about the existence of god if all one can offer is faith. What would that look like?
“I have faith.”
“No you don’t!”
“Yes I do.”
or
“I have faith in the existence of God!”
“Well, I don’t!”
“But I do!”
That’s not a debate.
I’m hoping it’s just a brief formality, but I do think it’s necessary. As soon as we stop enforcing the rules for people we judge to have broken them in a reasonable way, capricious moderation can easily take over.
I think a better analogy is a policeman arresting someone who walks into a police station and confesses to a minor crime. You go through the formal process so it can be handled consistently and above board, and then be off your record forever after.