Question for theology forum users

[cwes99_03]

Pyro, this site asks for feedback. Why do you complain when you get it. Furthermore, I didn't ask for the mods or admins to comment on it. I asked for those who regularly post in the theology forum to do so.

Furthermore, this is my first suggestion for a change to the theology forum (or subforum as Tormod pointed out).

[cwes99_03]

I do not consider theology to be a real science and seeing the kind of discussions we get there only strengthens my view.

 

Thus you feel that anything posted in the theology forum is off the wall, or deserves to be in some sort of strange claims forum.

So why don't you just cut the theology forum alltogether?

[Tormod]

Thus you feel that anything posted in the theology forum is off the wall, or deserves to be in some sort of strange claims forum.

 

That's your interpretation - it's not what I wrote.

 

So why don't you just cut the theology forum alltogether?

 

Because there is still hope for it.

[infamous]

Pyro, this site asks for feedback. Why do you complain when you get it. Furthermore, I didn't ask for the mods or admins to comment on it.

Actually cwes99_03, a request is not required per se. Mods and admins are free to comment on any issue they view as important..................Infy

[C1ay]

I would suggest you read the Theology Forum Rules for a better understanding of why we have a theology forum at all. We acknowledge that theology is a valid social science subject but this is not the place for people to argue about who's faith is better. That's one of the reasons PostMagnet was created, to have a place to direct those discussions away from Hypography. If you want more theological discourse try googling religion forums.

[cwes99_03]

Cwes, as you said before, you are not an admin or mod. If I were not a mod and I suggested some rearrangement of threads and the admin community showed no interest, I would simply drop the subject. And that wouldn't bother me at all -- certainly not the way it seems to bother you. And I wouldn't go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on with every reason I could think of for getting the admins to do things my way. You appear to be overly concerned with the way others post, with the relevance of others' opinions and rhetorical styles, and the organization of the whole site and the way the site is run.

 

Granted, Cwes, you occassionally have some intelligent things to say. But goldarnit, you can be so long-windedly obsessive at times. Perhaps you should start your own website. That way, you can sit in the driver's seat and run it any way you choose.

 

Pyro, this site asks for feedback. Why do you complain when you get it. Furthermore, I didn't ask for the mods or admins to comment on it. I asked for those who regularly post in the theology forum to do so.

Furthermore, this is my first suggestion for a change to the theology forum (or subforum as Tormod pointed out).

 

Actually cwes99_03, a request is not required per se. Mods and admins are free to comment on any issue they view as important..................Infy

 

 

I know infy.

The reason I wrote that is that Pyro was suggesting that if the mods didn't take up the thread and accept or reject what I said then I should just let it go. This thread was not written for the mods per se. It was written for all hypographers. So just because the mods didn't seem to take up the issue, doesn't mean the thread is dead. I have invited others specifically to discuss the issue. It just happens that those who have, have been mods or admins.

 

Thus his comments on being overly concerned and not being in the drivers seat have no real bearing. I don't want to be in the drivers seat. I don't make the ultimate decisions. I only make suggestions.

In government, they would call me a lobbyist. While I don't vote on the actual bills, I do have a lot to say about them, and I try to swing the votes my way by making persuasive arguments.

Pyro's post seemed to be saying that I should just drop it because no one wants to hear what I have to say. Since the mods and admins have this forum for suggestions, I would have to say the evidence is to the contrary.

 

Furthermore, Tormods post suggests that he is of two minds. If he still has hope for it then he believes that there are problems with it, but he is unwilling to take the suggestion I have made that would possibly alleviate some of the problems I imagine he has with the theology forum.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Thus you feel that anything posted in the theology forum is off the wall, or deserves to be in some sort of strange claims forum.

 

That's your interpretation - it's not what I wrote.

 

 

Quote:

So why don't you just cut the theology forum alltogether?

 

Because there is still hope for it.

 

BTW Tormod, you did effectively say that you think anything posted in the theology forum is unscientific. Thus if it isn't science, it is pseudoscience (A set of ideas based upon theories put forth as scientific whether they are or not; based upon an authorative text rather than observation or empirical investigation. http://www.thepeacefulplanet.com/glossary.html). If it is pseudoscience, then it belongs in strange claims.

I do, however, think that we should take it out of the science realm altogether. I do not consider theology to be a real science and seeing the kind of discussions we get there only strengthens my view.

How did I misunderstand what you wrote?

[InfiniteNow]

you did effectively say that you think anything posted in the theology forum is unscientific. Thus if it isn't science, it is pseudoscience

:hihi:

That which is NOT science does not auto-classify as psuedoscience. I really do struggle to understand how you derive some of your conclusions cwes.

 

Art is not science. Thus it is psuedoscience? Nope.

Love is not science. Thus it is psuedoscience? Nope.

Religion is not science. Thus it is pseudoscience? Nope.

 

 

You will be heard, but if you truly wish to influence a decision you will argue the merits of the point, not against the character of those who do not support it.

 

What I've heard in this thread, from members and staff alike, is that this is not an idea that will be implemented. ;) :hyper:

[cwes99_03]

No doubt iNow, you have seen that religion has been repeatedly touted as scientific. Look at the intelligent design debate. Look at the many other theological debates that suggest theories other than those put forth by the non-religious-scientists. Then read the definition of a pseudoscience.

pseudoscience - a set of ideas based upon theories put forth as scientific whether they are or not; based upon an authorative text rather than observation or empirical investigation.

 

Art is a set of ideas based upon theories, and in some cases they are put forth as scientific, but usually those ideas fall into the realm of optics. Love is a set of ideas based upon theories (many many many different theories) and in some cases it is put forth as scientific, but usually those ideas fall into the realm of psychology. Religion is a set of ideas based upon theories (or an authoritative text as the second half of that definition put forth) that are in many cases put forth as scientific (ID, etc) but according to many including our own Tormod, C1ay, and others are not.

Thus they all would be correctly paraphrased, according to the definition, of identifying religion as a pseudoscience. I really don't know how you don't derive that conclusion.

[InfiniteNow]

I really don't know how you don't derive that conclusion.

I guess the most accurate and simple answer is that I really disagree with the definitions you've offered, both of the three fields I used as an anology and what is a psuedoscience.

 

Theories make testable predictions, and no art, love, nor religion can do this.

 

 

However, I will not let you draw me in any further, as this was a question about changing the Theology forum by adding subforums, and we're now talking about the semantics of art and love. :hihi:

[Tormod]

BTW Tormod, you did effectively say that you think anything posted in the theology forum is unscientific.

I said no such thing. I said that I do not consider theology to be a real science.

 

Wikipedia agrees with me:

Theology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

How did I misunderstand what you wrote?

You used your usual twist-and-turn interpretation and made my comment into something it wasn't. That's all, really.

 

I have hopes for the theology forum but only in a larger sense - we have plans for a Hypography expansion and there will be more room for non-scientific discussion, while the science areas will be more focused.

[cwes99_03]

You accuse me of fescitious methods. I do not feel that I did any such thing.

 

not real science = pseudoscience

 

pseudoscience = strange claims forum

[Pyrotex]

...religion has been repeatedly touted as scientific.

So has bloodletting, leeches, drinking animal urine, eating rhino horn, astrology, numerology and many more. So what? You have made no point.

...Then read the definition of a pseudoscience.

pseudoscience - a set of ideas based upon theories put forth as scientific whether they are or not; based upon an authorative text rather than observation or empirical investigation.....

Sorry. I don't know what dictionary you're using, but it ain't legit.

 

From Wikipedia: Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific but does not follow the scientific method.[1] Pseudosciences may appear scientific, but they do not adhere to the testability requirement of the scientific method[2] and are often in conflict with current scientific consensus.

 

For further enlightenment: 16 Questions to Help Distinguish a Pseudoscience From a Protoscience (a new science trying to establish its legitimacy) by Lee Moller.

 

Cwes, wishing don't make it so. Wishing harder doesn't help. Wishing so hard that you actually BELIEVE it still doesn't help. You might want to switch tactics. [sarcasm]I've always found that it helps me to claim that I have had a personal revelation from an unnamed deity.[/sarcasm]

 

:D In any case, as this is not a theology website, I see no need to build any structure at all for those who wish to discuss theology here. What has already been provided should be sufficient.

[cwes99_03]

So has bloodletting, leeches, drinking animal urine, eating rhino horn, astrology, numerology and many more. So what? You have made no point.

Actually I have and you have demonstrated it for me.

 

Each one of those things above is a pseudoscience according to the definition I gave as well as the definition you gave.

 

You however apply the definition out of context. You state that religion et al are pseudoscience "because they can't" adhere to the testability requirement. However, the definition quoted, which I could change on a whim any day or night of the week by visiting the site, just says they don't adhere, not they can't.

The last part of your definition, would likewise state that e&m and many other theories that now are accepted were in conflict with current scientific consensus. Thus they were for a time considered pseudoscience. It was only after repeated demonstration, by individuals like me, that it was proven that their methods were in fact scientific, their theory was in fact acceptable as science, and their data was in fact valid.

 

No matter how hard I believe or you do not believe, doesn't change the truth. Check out my signature below. I have had it for some time now, apparently you haven't read it recently.

 

In any case, as this is not a theology website, I see no need to build any structure at all for those who wish to discuss theology here. What has already been provided should be sufficient.

 

Well, now, that is the point of this thread isn't it. Of course, it is up to me and others to suggest you are wrong and try to change your mind. Of course, if your mind cannot be changed, then you have falsely misled people to believe that their voice may be heard and that makes you...

[Pyrotex]

Actually I have and you have demonstrated it for me.

Typical cwes debating strategy: declare victory, unsubstantiated.

...You state that religion et al are pseudoscience "because they can't" adhere to the testability requirement.

Typical cwes debating strategy: put words in opponent's mouth

...It was only after repeated demonstration, by individuals like me, that it was proven that their methods were in fact scientific...

Somehow, I doubt very seriously that they were like you.

Check out my signature below.

I have seen it often. It doesn't strike me as something that an educated, productive, successful person would say. :cheer:

..Of course, if your mind cannot be changed, then you have falsely misled people to believe that their voice may be heard...

Typical cwes debating strategy: non-sequiter statements posing as logic. Just maybe you can't change my mind, because you consistently abuse my patience with your use of facetious reasoning.

 

Cwes, it's pretty obvious to me after all these months, that trying to teach you the proper way to debate, disagree, define terms, be courteous, and avoid acting out "the angry victim" hasn't gotten me anywhere, so please don't expect me to answer your taunts in the future. After attempting to debate reasonably with you, I am left with that feeling that one gets when one plays Bridge with monkeys: the monkeys think they have won when they eat the cards.

 

Have a wonderful New Year, and may the Good Lord (of your choice) bestow enlightenment upon you. Soon.

[cwes99_03]

Sorry, Pyro. I did in fact say "You state that religion et al are pseudoscience "because they can't" adhere to the testability requirement." you did not say that. However, would you disagree with it?

I was using the inclusive you. That would include all people who wish to characterize religion as non-science, despite the idea that many hold religion to be scientifically accurate. In your post above you accuse me of putting word's in my opponent's mouth. While you did not say those exact words, your side of the debate (debate here is expanded to the whole enchilada, not just this thread) has said just that.

 

If you diagree with my portayal of your side, then please set the matter straight by answering this simple question.

 

Do you think religion can adhere to the testability requirement?

If you do, then I misrepresented you, you would be on my side of the issue.

 

but they do not adhere to the testability requirement of the scientific method[2] and are often in conflict with current scientific consensus.

 

Now as to your first accusation of me.

 

Declare victory, unsubstantiated.

Perhaps you missed some points in the discussion on this thread.

 

That which is NOT science does not auto-classify as psuedoscience. I really do struggle to understand how you derive some of your conclusions cwes.

 

Art is not science. Thus it is psuedoscience? Nope.

Love is not science. Thus it is psuedoscience? Nope.

Religion is not science. Thus it is pseudoscience? Nope.

 

My reply was that there are parts of art that are considered science, parts of love that are considered science, and each of these parts actually is accepted as science. The rest of art and love (that are not science) are not touted as science, thus they cannot be included, by definition, as pseudoscience.

Art is a set of ideas based upon theories, and in some cases they are put forth as scientific, but usually those ideas fall into the realm of optics. Love is a set of ideas based upon theories (many many many different theories) and in some cases it is put forth as scientific, but usually those ideas fall into the realm of psychology.

 

pseudoscience - a set of ideas based upon theories put forth as scientific whether they are or not; based upon an authorative text rather than observation or empirical investigation.

 

However, religious people often make the claim that their religious teachings are scientific, scientifically accurate, or scientifically testable ideas. Their problem comes down to scientists denying them that saying that the religious teachings are at odds with science (in reality at odds with some other theories), are not scientifically accurate (according to the limited angle of view for data being consigned by them as scientific), and not scientifically testable.

Religion is a set of ideas based upon theories (or an authoritative text as the second half of that definition put forth) that are in many cases put forth as scientific (ID, etc) but according to many including our own Tormod, C1ay, and others are not.

 

The opposition has stated that they do not thing religion is a 'real science'.

 

I said that I do not consider theology to be a real science.

 

Theories make testable predictions, and no ... religion can do this.

 

not real science = pseudoscience

 

pseudoscience = strange claims forum

 

To which I will add

Not testable = pseudoscience

pseudoscience = strange claims

 

This is where you, Pyro, step in and tell me I have yet to prove anything about religion being touted as a science and many on this website considering it pseudoscience.

 

So has bloodletting, leeches, drinking animal urine, eating rhino horn, astrology, numerology and many more. So what? You have made no point.

And my reply to that false statement.

Actually I have and you have demonstrated it for me.

 

Each one of those things above is a pseudoscience according to the definition I gave as well as the definition you gave.

 

You see a very strong point has been made.

 

1) Religion is believed by many to be scientifically accurate and it's claims are testable, yet many in the scientific community disagree and call religion a pseudoscience because they do not think it testable.

2) Things on this website that are considered pseudoscience have their own section of the forum (strange claims).

3) The purpose of the strange claims forum, as stated in another thread that I don't have the time to find right now, is to be a place where hypographers can discuss their "weird" ideas with others and not be 'attacked' by those who do not feel their ideas hold any merrit, so that at some point down the road those ideas may come back into another forum.

 

Now part 3 is where I intended this thread to be discussed. I did not forsee that so many of you would have problems with points 1 and 2, namely that religion is considered a pseudoscience and that means giving it a space like strange claims has, but separate ones for different religions.

 

I am not suggesting that this separate space become a place for proselitizing. To the contrary. Most people do not visit the strange claims forum expecting to find information considered currently scientifically accurate. They expect to find strange(weird) claims. Why not the same for the different religious groups?

[InfiniteNow]

Most people do not visit the strange claims forum expecting to find information considered currently scientifically accurate. They expect to find strange(weird) claims. Why not the same for the different religious groups?

...because they are only strange to you.

[cwes99_03]

And yet I feel like I have demonstrated pretty well that others here feel religion is also a pseudoscience and that any claims to be scientific are just as strange as any claims to be able to bend the space time continuum or to speak with aliens via fm radio.