PF has guidelines on religion?

[Count Iblis]

PF has guidelines on religion?

On a thread about "Jihad Jane" in the world affairs section I wrote that we should change our educational system in an atheist direction. I did not insult religious people, but what I wrote is judgemental about religion itself. Put differently, it amounts to saying that some fraction of religious people will do irrational things. The more religious people there are the more dangerous it will be.

I may have written this message in a more charged way, but then it is a thread in which people write things like: "She isn't worth the rope to hang her." Now, my message was removed and I got 3 infraction points. I was told that I violated some guidelines that PF has on religion that I'm completely unaware of.

Such guidelines are a problem for PF, because it prevents discussions on subjects were religion is relevant in a way that cannot even be discussed according to the PF rules. Also, this is primarily Physics Forums and the participants in the World affairs section will be primarily physicsists and mathematicians, many of whom are radical atheist. They may see solutions to World problems problems that most other people cannot even conceive of.

To put this into a different perspective, suppose Steven Weinberg were a PF member and had written his famous statement here on PF saying that: "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things -- that takes religion", he would have banned while the same discussion would continue with statements like: "She isn't worth the rope to hang her."

 

[jtbell]

Please read the Religious Discussion Guidelines section of the Rules that are linked at the top of every page at PF.

 

[DaveC426913]

Count, I'm not really sure what the problem is. This is a Physics forum with clear rules on discussion of religion. You agreed to these rules when you signed up, and you're no newbie. In 2 1/2 years, this is the first time you've seen a religion discussion shut down with reference to the rules??

 

[Ivan Seeking]

On a thread about "Jihad Jane" in the world affairs section I wrote that we should change our educational system in an atheist direction. I did not insult religious people, but what I wrote is judgemental about religion itself. Put differently, it amounts to saying that some fraction of religious people will do irrational things. The more religious people there are the more dangerous it will be.

I may have written this message in a more charged way, but then it is a thread in which people write things like: "She isn't worth the rope to hang her." Now, my message was removed and I got 3 infraction points. I was told that I violated some guidelines that PF has on religion that I'm completely unaware of.

Such guidelines are a problem for PF, because it prevents discussions on subjects were religion is relevant in a way that cannot even be discussed according to the PF rules. Also, this is primarily Physics Forums and the participants in the World affairs section will be primarily physicsists and mathematicians, many of whom are radical atheist. They may see solutions to World problems problems that most other people cannot even conceive of.

To put this into a different perspective, suppose Steven Weinberg were a PF member and had written his famous statement here on PF saying that: "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things -- that takes religion", he would have banned while the same discussion would continue with statements like: "She isn't worth the rope to hang her."

Weinberg would not be banned for a first offense, but his comments would be deleted and perhaps a penalty assigned. I think the important thing to remember is that having a physics degree or even Nobel prize does not imbue one with some sort of special wisdom. His comments carry no more weight than those of anyone else. Beyond that, his comments might be applied to politics, money, or most any ideology. For example, nationalism and patriotism can and do certainly drive people to do terrible things - like trying to exterminate the Jews and conquer the world. Also, if you check charitable and humantarian organizations and the work they do, religious organizations will count heavily in that review; a point almost never mentioned here. See for example Loyola High School, in Los Angeles, and the work they do. The charitable/humanitarian contributions made by the students are so pervasive that the city now depends on them.

Beyond that, here in the US, religion was banned in public schools long ago. So here, at least, education is already atheist based. What is it that you want; publically funded religion bashing? That would violate the Constitution.

I am reminded of a sociology class that I had years ago in college. The professor showed a film that absolutely ridiculed religion and the evangelical movement in particular. All the while the prof was adding insults and laughing at "the fools". So at the college level, it would seem, religion bashing already exists.

Bottom line: Science does not and cannot address matters of faith, so those discussions have no place here.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I must add this. The thesis of a college history class taken was that nationalism is at the heart most global evils since the Renaissance.

Yes Dr. Stack, we got the point!

 

[waht]

Bottom line: Science does not and cannot address matters of faith, so those discussions have no place here.

This statement is arguable, religion can be explained by science. You are inviting a science/religion based discussion.

 

[Pinu7]

On PF, there should be open minded tolerance towards beliefs on religion, or there lack of.
If I commented "atheists are irrational," would that not be offensive? Truth is, you are attacking a lot of people' beliefs with your comments with your comment.

This is why almost all threads on religion/atheism gets locked.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Constructive topics on the philosophy of God as well as the historical or sociological perspectives of religion have always been welcome at PF. The guidelines are fairly clear. What we don't want are your values and opinions on what is right or wrong in regards to religion.

 

[zomgwtf]

I have to agree with Count in regard to what he said doesn't go against the forum rules.

religion might be permissible if they are discussed in such a way so as to remain neutral on the truth of, or value judgments stemming from, religious belief systems

He's not talking about any religious in particular and he's not attacking their beliefs or values in a comparisson to another religion... he remains neutral on which religious belief system is truth etc. which in my opinion is what the rules are against. 'My religion is better than yours'.
It's almost as though some of the mentors think that atheism is a religion which is far from true and saying that the education system should move towards a more atheistic way of thinking is exactly the same as just saying religion should not be allowed in schools.

How does THAT go against the rules? Let alone deserve multiple infraction points?

 

[zomgwtf]

On PF, there should be open minded tolerance towards beliefs on religion, or there lack of.
If I commented "atheists are irrational," would that not be offensive? Truth is, you are attacking a lot of people' beliefs with your comments with your comment.

This is why almost all threads on religion/atheism gets locked.

I highly doubt any person on these forums would be offended if you had claimed atheist are irrational. The burden of proof is on you anyways, a debate might be sparked but that comment alone is far from offending any person in particular, let alone the atheist.

Plus his post isn't an attack on any individuals beliefs, it was a clear attack on the education system and it's failure to keep religious aspects out of the system. He gives an example of the irrational behaviour etc. that comes out of people who follow religious dogma, the burden of proof is on him now but I don't see how that violates the rules.

If saying that religious people are more likely to behave irrationally or that from religion grows irrational behaviour/thoughts offends you then maybe it's because you're not entirely comfortable with your beliefs? Sounds more like a personal problem.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I have to agree with Count in regard to what he said doesn't go against the forum rules.

How does THAT go against the rules?

We're not open to debate on specific moderation.

 

[zomgwtf]

In fact if what Count says about religion in schools is against the rules then wouldn't the rule be going against the rules:

Religious proselytizing is strictly prohibited.

I'll answer for you: no
The fact that PF does not want religious beliefs/ideas to be promoted in it's forums is the same as Count saying that he doesn't think that the beliefs/ideas should be promoted in the education system.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

In fact if what Count says about religion in schools is against the rules then wouldn't the rule be going against the rules:

I'll answer for you: no
The fact that PF does not want religious beliefs/ideas to be promoted in it's forums is the same as Count saying that he doesn't think that the beliefs/ideas should be promoted in the education system.

The point in question is when he states religion as being nonsense. That kind of comment will usually spark further discussion and derail a thread. Again, this specific moderation is not up for debate.

 

[Hurkyl]

I have to agree with Count in regard to what he said doesn't go against the forum rules. ... he remains neutral on which religious belief system is truth etc.

You are misinformed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This statement is arguable, religion can be explained by science. You are inviting a science/religion based discussion.

The notion of omnipotence makes it impossible of falsify faith-based beliefs. So while human needs and motivations might be understood, the essence of faith - the belief in a God [in most religions] - and consequently all beliefs derived from that belief, are beyond the reach of science.

 

[DaveC426913]

I've got a great idea. Let's change policy to make violation of PF Rules based on a vote by members. It'll free up a lot of the Moderators' time...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I've got a great idea. Let's change policy to make violation of PF Rules based on a vote by members. It'll free up a lot of the Moderators' time...

Heh, that sounds great! We could change the name to JerrySpringersphysicsforums.com.

 

[waht]

The notion of omnipotence makes it impossible of falsify faith-based beliefs. So while human needs and motivations might be understood, the essence of faith - the belief in a God [in most religions] - and consequently all beliefs derived from that belief, are beyond the reach of science.

If you say so.

 

[pallidin]

I like PF the way it is.
When I'm itching to view/discuss something very speculative, there is a different site I go to.

And what I mean by "speculative" is this type which has no current scientific foundation.
This is in difference to the type of "healthy" speculation that actually promotes science, which PF is willing to tolerate up to a reasonable point.

 

[Rohit Mallya]

On a thread about "Jihad Jane" in the world affairs section I wrote that we should change our educational system in an atheist direction. I did not insult religious people, but what I wrote is judgemental about religion itself. Put differently, it amounts to saying that some fraction of religious people will do irrational things. The more religious people there are the more dangerous it will be.

I may have written this message in a more charged way, but then it is a thread in which people write things like: "She isn't worth the rope to hang her." Now, my message was removed and I got 3 infraction points. I was told that I violated some guidelines that PF has on religion that I'm completely unaware of.

Such guidelines are a problem for PF, because it prevents discussions on subjects were religion is relevant in a way that cannot even be discussed according to the PF rules. Also, this is primarily Physics Forums and the participants in the World affairs section will be primarily physicsists and mathematicians, many of whom are radical atheist. They may see solutions to World problems problems that most other people cannot even conceive of.

To put this into a different perspective, suppose Steven Weinberg were a PF member and had written his famous statement here on PF saying that: "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things -- that takes religion", he would have banned while the same discussion would continue with statements like: "She isn't worth the rope to hang her."

Yeah you are absolutely right..!

 

[Count Iblis]

I like PF the way it is.
When I'm itching to view/discuss something speculative, there is a different site I go to.

From a scientific perspective, the "God hypothesis" is extremely speculative.

 

[pallidin]

From a scientific perspective, the "God hypothesis" is extremely speculative.

Indeed. What I like most about PF is, like you said, "scientific perspective"

Religion is, for the most part, "faith based" as it does not seem to readily lend itself to scientific inspection or OUTSIDE experiential validation.
There are other forums for that.

PF, in my opinion, has and should remain it's focus on the "scientific perspective"

 

[Evo]

The issue has been reviewed, so I am closing the thread.