Re: RELIGION Religious and political sig lines (was Missionaries)

[Guest guest]

Lorien-

> I have to say that I find it very anti-nourishing for me to have

> christianity (and the assumption that is is the only truth) shoved

> down my

> throat when what I came here for was information on how to keep my

> family

> healthy.

That's the reason for the RELIGION tag: you can set up a filter in

your email client to move religion-centric message straight to the

trash so you don't have to read them. If you'd like to set up such a

filter but you don't know how to do it, please feel free to email me

offlist and I'll help you through the process.

-

[Guest guest]

,

> Excuse me, but I have to object. I am not an atheist because of

> dogma or faith, I don't believe in gods because I see no evidence of

> same. As such I am an EMPIRICAL atheist -- or technically, in the

> most rigorous sense of the word, an agnostic, because I don't pretend

> to have an explanation for the origins of the universe.

This is just plain siliness. Your epistemological understanding of

empiricism is an assumption, a presupposition, and thus a dogma.

Chris

[Guest guest]

As I stated to another person, I have never claimed that your signature

lines acted as cause/effect to the detriment of your overall moderation. I

do not recall that in this thread I have criticized it, actually. But this

is one reason why I generally collapse from exhaustion discussion an issue

with you - you will go into incredible detail, in which every point you make

is either a misstatement or a faulty inference of what I have said.

My original statement in this thread was simply that I found the notion of

missonaries rather reprehensible, or something like that. I can't find the

original post...

The discussion has taken off since then, but it seems to me that much of

what you impute to me has taken place in subsequent posts, many of them in

response to your declarations of what Christianity is exactly and who is and

isn't, and who has tolerance for and who doesn't have tolerancy for,

Christianity.

Obviously we disagree on many matters...I'm tired of this thread, as it

obviously isn't going anywhere. But it's difficult not to respond when you

distort what I've said and the context in which I've said it.

I have never said that, as moderator, you couldn't post responses to others,

especially in religious threads, with the same set of 'rules' as anyone

else. I did distinguish between this and signature lines (while the latter

are obviously in some manner, part of the content of posts). It is fine for

others to disagree about this ....but again, my argument was NEVER (quote me

if you can find it) that because of your Christian beliefs as expressed in

your signature lines, the objectivity of your moderation was in question.

I have complained (in one fashion or another) about some of these Christian

signatures by other members (non-moderators) before. A signature line,

unlike text in a specific response, is repeated in EVERY post in every

thread. It therefore becomes the expression of a particular belief system,

and when the moderator is doing this (IMO) is, as someone else put it,

throwing Christianity (of a certain sort) in my face. Repeatedly.

I'm going to try to extract myself from this thread now. That may be

difficult if I am yet again 'quoted' as saying things that I most certainly

have not said.

> On 6/18/07, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...

> <mailto:implode7%40comcast.net> > wrote:

>> Personally, growing up non-Christian, I find it rather annoying (and it

>> occurs way

>> more on this list than others that I¹m on) to be the recipient of it. And,

>> given

>> Chris's conception of its essence to Christianity, and the fact that

> he is Christian,

>> it has felt like the moderator of the list is doing his own missionary work

>> via his

>> semail signatures.

>

> I don't see any substance to your complaint other than that you find

> my signature line annoying, and you somehow assume that as a (then)

> moderator I should have personally embodied the religious neutrality

> of the list in my own posts, which is of course your arbitrary

> judgment wherein you believe that others should be subject to the laws

> of what does and does not annoy you.

>

> If we look at my policy as moderator toward religion as a whole, or

> toward the list as a whole, it may shed some light as to whether I

> have been using the list for my own " missionary " activities in some

> unacceptalbe way. Let's consider:

>

> 1) When I took over the moderator position on this list, it was in

> utter chaos. There was rampant posting of religious posts with no use

> of the RELIGION tag whatsoever, people accusing other people of being

> mental defects because of their sexual orientation and people openly

> referring to YOU as a " swine " in the third person right in front of

> you.

>

> 2) Within the first day I took over I began enforcing the RELIGION tag

> rules and within several days the discussion almost ceased. Without

> taking action against anyone, I suggested that a tamer off-topic

> religious discussion had moved to the point where it was no longer

> profitable to hold it on list, and it subsequently dissipated. We

> have had, I don't think, absolutely zero religious discussion or close

> to it -- even though religious discussion is *allowed* on the list

> with the appropriate tagging -- since then.

>

> 3) The current religious quarrel began with Renate's statement that it

> would be nice for the natives to know God, but if they are already

> living in Eden, one wonders what good a materialistic and

> paternalistic religion will do them. Despite the relatively

> anti-missionary sense of this statement that is in relative, though

> obviously not perfect, concordance with your own views, you took such

> great offense at the idea that they don't already " know God " that this

> current discussion was thus born.

>

> 3) When I took over the moderator position several months ago YOU

> were on moderation, and if I understand the history correctly this had

> both the previous moderator's and the listowner's awareness and

> consent. Despite the fact that your posts are consistently contrary

> to my religious beliefs and that I am one of perhaps two people with

> whom you have repeatedly had personal conflict on list before, it was

> my action to take you off moderation as soon as I became moderator.

>

> 4) Shortly before I began moderating, some dozen or so people had been

> put on moderation. I took ALL of them off moderation and in the few

> months during which I moderated the list subsisted in peace without a

> single person being put on moderation and with all newcomers being

> taken off moderation after it was clear their first post was not spam.

>

> 5) My religious sig lines did not come from Scripture and were similar

> to the religious sig lines I have been using on and off on this list

> for FIVE YEARS.

>

> 6) Someone else made several posts to this list with the EXACT SAME

> religious sig line that I had been using recently. A number of other

> people have been using religious sig lines without comment from

> anyone in both times recent and times past and the same is true for

> political sig lines. I have not asked anyone to modify their sig

> lines regardless of whether the religious or political views expressed

> therein were or are consistent with mine or contrary to mine.

>

> So, I would say that on the whole my moderation of religious and

> political matters has been even-handed, and moreover 100% consistent

> with the list rules that have existed up until 's recent ruling

> that religious and political sig lines are not allowed, which I have

> consistently obeyed from the point he made the ruling and which I

> would have enforced as moderator had it been a rule at the time I was

> moderating.

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

>

>

>

>

> ,

>

>> > Excuse me, but I have to object. I am not an atheist because of

>> > dogma or faith, I don't believe in gods because I see no evidence of

>> > same. As such I am an EMPIRICAL atheist -- or technically, in the

>> > most rigorous sense of the word, an agnostic, because I don't pretend

>> > to have an explanation for the origins of the universe.

>

> ³This is just plain siliness. Your epistemological understanding of

> empiricism is an assumption, a presupposition, and thus a dogma.

>

> Chris²

>

> As a joke, that¹s pretty good. I fear that it¹s not, however.

>

[Guest guest]

,

> The issue just never came up in the past, and admittedly I still

> haven't had time to dig up the current messages in question. (If

> someone could post or email me a link, I'd be grateful; I have far

> too much work to do today, and I have no idea how I'm going to finish

> it all.)

The issue didn't not come up because no one was using them. The issue

didn't come up because people have been using religious and political

sig lines for a minimum of five years without anyone ever raising an

issue about it whatsoever.

I already posted to links to religious sig lines I was using in 2002

and 2005. For convenience here they are again:

/message/65443 (2005)

/message/11719

(2002 -- this is my first post on the list ever. )

Here is the sig line that I was using for about 40 days or so recently:

/message/91996

Here's someone else using the same one:

/message/91788

Here's someone else using a religious sig line fairly recently:

/message/90762

And so on.

Chris

[Guest guest]

I understand that as well. I used to get these emailed to me but switched to

reading online

long ago to avoid the messages filling up my email. I guess all this off topic,

pointless

argument is more important, though.

>

> Lorien-

>

> > I have to say that I find it very anti-nourishing for me to have

> > christianity (and the assumption that is is the only truth) shoved

> > down my

> > throat when what I came here for was information on how to keep my

> > family

> > healthy.

>

> That's the reason for the RELIGION tag: you can set up a filter in

> your email client to move religion-centric message straight to the

> trash so you don't have to read them. If you'd like to set up such a

> filter but you don't know how to do it, please feel free to email me

> offlist and I'll help you through the process.

>

> -

>

>

[Guest guest]

On 6/19/07, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> I'm going to try to extract myself from this thread now. That may be

> difficult if I am yet again 'quoted' as saying things that I most certainly

> have not said.

Fair enough. I'm not really interested in this conversation either.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> I can't see where this would reasonably be applied to

>siglines. I'm on

>> a LOT of lists and see various siglines in the list owners' and

>> moderators' posts that I never thought to intrepret as some sort of

>> official viewpoint. Most of them are links to personal or business

>> sites, but I think the same principle applies to siglines that are

>> philosophical or religious in nature.

>

>Inasmuch as I oppose advertising in sigs, I can't very well

>exempt sigs from reasonable tagging requirements that are

>applied to message bodies.

Why not? They have nothing to do with what people are discussing in their

emails. I mean, why start now? And where does it end? Do people who have

siglines that can be interpreted to be politial in nature now have to use

the POLITICS tag? And what about nebulous sig lines - ones that don't easily

fit into a religios or political framework, but are more philosophical? Or

are part religion, part politics, part philosophy?

And won't some folks find it confusing if someone has a POLITICS tag in the

subject line due to a political sigline, but there is nothing political in

the post? Maybe the post is about some health issue important to several

people who've set up their email filters to filter out RELIGION tags in the

subject line, for instance, so they will automatically have all emails,

regardless of the content, be filitered out if someone has a RELIGION tag

due only to their sigline. Even when the *content* of the email is something

important to them.

It seems like it will make everything far more confusing. I really don't

understand why siglines are an issue...

>

>The issue just never came up in the past, and admittedly I

>still haven't had time to dig up the current messages in

>question. (If someone could post or email me a link, I'd be

>grateful; I have far too much work to do today, and I have no

>idea how I'm going to finish it all.)

>

>> I find this completely absurd considering the owner of this

>list is as

>> " dogmatically " atheist as you perceive to be " dogmatically "

>> Christian.

>

>Excuse me, but I have to object. I am not an atheist because

>of dogma or faith, I don't believe in gods because I see no

>evidence of same. As such I am an EMPIRICAL atheist -- or

>technically, in the most rigorous sense of the word, an

>agnostic, because I don't pretend to have an explanation for

>the origins of the universe.

Right, and I intentionally put the quotation marks around Gene's chosen word

" dogmatic " for a reason - I know your atheism is well reasoned, as is

Chris' Christianity. IOW, I found Gene's use of the word " dogmatic " to be

inaccurate.

>

>We now return you to your regularly-scheduled squabbling.

>

>

LOL! Aren't you glad you're back in the fray now? ;-)

Suze

[Guest guest]

Ivy-

> I understand that as well. I used to get these emailed to me but

> switched to reading online

> long ago to avoid the messages filling up my email.

In that case, it's even easier for you -- just don't click on any

messages with 'RELGION' in the subject line!

> I guess all this off topic, pointless

> argument is more important, though.

>

The list is a community, and as such sometimes there are squabbles

and sometimes discussions spring up on off-topic subjects. Because

it's a community, that's not only reasonable but expected and even,

in some senses, necessary, but because some people don't care for off-

topic political and religious conversations, I instituted the tagging

system. As long as messages are tagged appropriately, all the

members' needs are served.

-

[Guest guest]

On 6/19/07, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> > ³This is just plain siliness. Your epistemological understanding of

> > empiricism is an assumption, a presupposition, and thus a dogma.

> As a joke, that¹s pretty good. I fear that it¹s not, however.

LOL. No, it wasn't a joke, but at least you found it amusing. :-)

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 6/19/07, iv_adb <iv_adb@...> wrote:

> I understand that as well. I used to get these emailed to me but switched to

> reading online

> long ago to avoid the messages filling up my email. I guess all this off

> topic, pointless

> argument is more important, though.

Yes, it is. I think the nutritional information on the list would be

seriously compromised if all the people who engage in pointless

off-topic argument weren't on the list.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Ivy-

> Can't the people be on the list and not the pointless, off topic

> argument?

Life -- and people, and communities -- don't work that way.

People on the list congregate to talk about things they care about

with people they like and respect and to learn about subjects which

interest them. If you cut out a large portion of the conversation,

many people will lost interest and leave.

-

[Guest guest]

On 6/19/07, iv_adb <iv_adb@...> wrote:

> Can't the people be on the list and not the pointless, off topic argument?

No. Are you new?

I don't mean that in a rude way, but really, are you new?

Chris

[Guest guest]

,

> It is a new rule, or at least a clarification and extension of an old

> one, and I don't mean to suggest otherwise.

Fair enough.

> I do remember that sig, but there are three differences between now

> and then.

> First, the issue didn't come up then. Clarifications and additions

> to the rules are generally made in response to issues and

> disagreements that come up. Gene complained about overtly religious

> sigs, and I thought about it and concluded that because sigs are part

> of the posts they terminate, the same tagging rules should apply to

> them that apply to message bodies.

Well this isn't a difference between then and now in any substantive

sense of the phrase; it is a difference in how you are ruling on the

issue. So maybe there are two differences.

> Second, you are now a moderator of the group, and as such you have an

> added burden to comply with both the letter and the spirit of the rules.

No, I'm not a moderator because I resigned my moderatorship last

night, for a couple reasons but mostly because I had offered to

moderate the list in your absence because it was not being moderated,

and when you announced your return you said you were never leaving.

This is not a difference between then and now, because neither during

my moderatorship nor before it was there ever either a letter or

spirit of any rule whatsoever that disapproved of religious sig lines.

So maybe there is one difference between then and now.

> And third, though I admit I haven't had the chance to look at the

> current messages/sigs in question, the example sigs you refer to

> above, while religious, are not advocating a position, and as such

> are less likely to trigger list member emotions and an application

> (and review) of the rules. It's the difference between a sig that

> says " The meek shall inherit the earth " and " Abortion is murder! " , or

> " Remember to vote! " and " Rudy Giuliani is an evil transvestite! "

Then THIS is not a difference either. Rather, it is an admission that

there was never any grounds to change the status quo of some greater

portion of a decade, because no one was advocating any " position " in

any religious sig lines any more than the above example. The main one

I was using recently that offended Gene I posted a link to further

down in this thread, and the crux of it is is that on the day of the

resurrection of Christ let us say even to those that hate us let us

forgive all things. It advocates a " position " in that it assumes that

Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead, and that we should forgive

each other, but the above sig line assumes that demons exist, and that

men can become holy, and so on, so they are equivalent in that

respect.

> I'm inclined to continue to allow untagged nonpartisan religious and

> political sigs provided they're not too long (length being a separate

> issue of netiquette) but I'm open to arguments pro or con, and your

> present status as a moderator means that such a grey area isn't

> really open to you anyway.

I don't care. I'm not going to use sig lines at all anymore.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> > I do remember that sig, but there are three differences between now

> > and then.

>

> > First, the issue didn't come up then. Clarifications and additions

> > to the rules are generally made in response to issues and

> > disagreements that come up. Gene complained about overtly religious

> > sigs, and I thought about it and concluded that because sigs are

> part

> > of the posts they terminate, the same tagging rules should apply to

> > them that apply to message bodies.

>

> Well this isn't a difference between then and now in any substantive

> sense of the phrase; it is a difference in how you are ruling on the

> issue. So maybe there are two differences.

This runs the risk of turning into a semantic debate, but I do

consider it a significant difference between the two times/

environments/atmospheres that the issue of sigs came up. I would say

the exact same thing of the transition to tagging. Discussion

proceeded untagged, then people complained, then I instituted tagging

to preserve free speech while also giving uninterested parties a

useful tool.

> No, I'm not a moderator because I resigned my moderatorship last

> night, for a couple reasons but mostly because I had offered to

> moderate the list in your absence because it was not being moderated,

> and when you announced your return you said you were never leaving.

I wasn't aware that you'd resigned. This is unfortunate news, as

Wanita has also resigned, and there's no way I have enough time at

present to moderate the list all by myself.

If you'd like to discuss this further offlist, that would be fine,

but I hope you'll reconsider.

> Then THIS is not a difference either. Rather, it is an admission that

> there was never any grounds to change the status quo of some greater

> portion of a decade, because no one was advocating any " position " in

> any religious sig lines any more than the above example.

I'm not so sure about that. One of the examples you linked to was

something like " It's wonderful to be SAVED!!! " which is at the very

least borderline.

> The main one

> I was using recently that offended Gene I posted a link to further

> down in this thread, and the crux of it is is that on the day of the

> resurrection of Christ let us say even to those that hate us let us

> forgive all things. It advocates a " position " in that it assumes that

> Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead, and that we should forgive

> each other, but the above sig line assumes that demons exist, and that

> men can become holy, and so on, so they are equivalent in that

> respect.

Well, advocacy of forgiveness hardly seems problematic.

Admittedly I've blundered in my handling of this whole issue. I got

several disturbed/angry/frustrated emails offlist, and in the course

of returning to the list, I leapt into the issue without first

looking at the posts in question, and for that I apologize.

However, while I personally don't generally notice sigs at all, I do

think it's reasonable to require that they be reasonably short (as

I've sometimes stated, largely on behalf of those who read the list

in digest form, and per general rules of netiquette) and non-polarizing.

> I don't care. I'm not going to use sig lines at all anymore.

That seems like an overreaction, but as you please.

-

[Guest guest]

I'm fairly new to this list, but I would like to add another humble

opinion to the mix. I see signature lines as part of a person. For

some, it defines or identifies who they are, much like their name. If

I don't want to read them, I don't, just like I skip over many names

as I'm reading posts. No biggie. They are usually written after they

sign their name which make them very easy to skip over. However, there

are times I do read them and appreciate learning a little more about

the person posting whether they are a moderator, lurker or whatever,

whether it reveals he/she is an atheist, Christian or whatever.

If the goal of this list is to not offend folks, perhaps the new rule

shouldn't stop with tagging the signature lines. My name is decidedly

religious in origin and meaning. I embrace the meaning of it as very

much a part of who I am. Given the nature of the dialogue concerning

the signature lines, I am certain my name could very well be offensive

to a small number of folks. Perhaps the new rule should include adding

the RELIGION tag to posts with religious names attached. Perhaps that

should also apply to folks who have used ID's and email

addresses that are religious in nature as well.

Or...

Did Dr. Price ever study any traditional diets that gave natives thick

skins???? )

>

> Inasmuch as I oppose advertising in sigs, I can't very well exempt

> sigs from reasonable tagging requirements that are applied to message

> bodies.

>

>

> We now return you to your regularly-scheduled squabbling.

>

>

>

> -

>

>

[Guest guest]

Let me reiterate that I wasn't making any call for further censorship of

content. I was just making my feelings known. I'm quite used to be the only

person on this list who has a particular viewpoint.

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: Idol <Idol@...>

> Gene-

>

> > My point was that there is something inherently different for the

> > moderator of the list (you were the temporary moderator, right) to

> > post a blatantly dogmatic Christian signature line.

>

> Just to further clarify my position on this matter, I disagree with

> the sense that I think you mean. Anyone can have a religious sig

> line provided it's not grossly inflammatory (e.g. " You're going to

> burn in hell you godless heathen scum! " ). The question is simply one

> of tagging.

>

> > I do agree with in the general case, however. I think that the

> > signature is a part of the message, in the sense that I have every

> > right to reply to it, and also that if it is deemed offensive,

> > others will react to it the same way.

>

> The sense I have, though I still have some catching up to do, is that

> you're the only one who was bothered by current sigs.

>

> The RELIGION tag, however, was instituted in response to widespread

> irritation and discomfort with the extensive religious discussions

> that sometimes break out on the list. The tag allows people to

> filter out religious messages if they so desire, but it is not

> censorship of regulation or speech. As such, I don't think it's

> unreasonable to tag based on sigs, but such tagging is inevitably

> going to be less important and less rigorously enforced than tagging

> based on message bodies.

>

> -

>

>

[Guest guest]

,

> This runs the risk of turning into a semantic debate, but I do

> consider it a significant difference between the two times/

> environments/atmospheres that the issue of sigs came up. I would say

> the exact same thing of the transition to tagging. Discussion

> proceeded untagged, then people complained, then I instituted tagging

> to preserve free speech while also giving uninterested parties a

> useful tool.

I disagree with your assessment and I do not think it's semantics.

Political threads were a new thing when they came up: the notorious

Oreo thread brought in a new question that needed answering. That is,

are political threads related to nutrition? There was a huge amount

of strife and complaint over this from many members, and from a brief

archive search it appears the Oreo thread was in June of 2003 and the

politics tagging began in January of 2004. It is worth pointing out

that your decision culminated from six months of list discussion,

though obviously you have the right to make the decision without any

discussion or with more or less discussion than that. But the main

point wherein I see a difference here is that huge political threads

were a new issue, and were treated as such and were dealt with as

such. By contrast religious and political sig lines are not a new

issue.

Furthermore, there was previously quite a long period of unrest over

the threads wherein many people who do not complain about everything

were complaining about that one thing. This is different in that

sense too.

> I'm not so sure about that. One of the examples you linked to was

> something like " It's wonderful to be SAVED!!! " which is at the very

> least borderline.

Borderline what? I consider that subject line to be so massively

contradictory to the Christian doctrine of salvation that were anyone

to advocate it within my church I would be on the front lines refuting

them, but it certainly does not " offend " or " repulse " me that someone

believes it or wishes to express joy in it.

The difference between sig lines and the content of posts, in my

opinion, is the difference between wearing a cross around one's neck

to work and prosyletizing to the customers. One is an open but

passive expression of one's faith and the other is an assertive

propagation of one's faith.

> Well, advocacy of forgiveness hardly seems problematic.

I am not the one who claimed it was problematic, but, Gene was the one

who complained, and his complaint was apparently less the content of

it and more the fact that he thought the moderator's sig line must

represent the ethos of the list.

> Admittedly I've blundered in my handling of this whole issue. I got

> several disturbed/angry/frustrated emails offlist, and in the course

> of returning to the list, I leapt into the issue without first

> looking at the posts in question, and for that I apologize.

Apology accepted, though I think you have the right to make the

decision without looking at the individual examples anyway, because

you did not reprimand me for my signature line but instead instituted

a general rule, so in this sense I question whether you owe me an

apology. One thing that I do object to, however, is that you consider

it " patently obvious " (or you said the opposite was " patently absurd, "

I forget) that religious and political sig lines are to be treated the

same as the content of posts, when in fact if this was so obvious, we

would have been doing it for the last five years of my tenure here and

seven of Suze's and however long the list has been here, when in fact,

we have been assuming the opposite the entire time.

> However, while I personally don't generally notice sigs at all, I do

> think it's reasonable to require that they be reasonably short (as

> I've sometimes stated, largely on behalf of those who read the list

> in digest form, and per general rules of netiquette) and non-polarizing.

Well you can define length objectively and I suppose if you could

devise a definition for " non-polarizing " that didn't leave it in the

hands of the arbitrary judgment of a moderator that would be an

effective rule too, but, were I moderating, I don't think I'd be

comfortable with enforcing a rule about what is " polarizing " and what

is not.

> > I don't care. I'm not going to use sig lines at all anymore.

> That seems like an overreaction, but as you please.

Well I still have no idea what the list rule is, because you were

saying first that there were no religious sigs, and now you seem to be

saying that the one I was using was acceptalbe, which was blatantly

religious like the first. But you also said that advertising was not

acceptable, and pretty much the only sig line I've used besides

religious ones has been the link to my web site, which is advertising

my writings, which I do indeed make a small amount of money from

through Google ads and so on, so if every single signature line I have

ever had over the last five years is now banned, I would rather just

not use sig lines than try to devise some sig line that fits into the

new rules. However, if none of these things are actually banned, then

I could apparently use all of the sig lines I've been using for the

last five years with impunity. Yet, I still don't know which is

which.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> > Well, advocacy of forgiveness hardly seems problematic.

>

> I am not the one who claimed it was problematic, but, Gene was the one

> who complained, and his complaint was apparently less the content of

> it and more the fact that he thought the moderator's sig line must

> represent the ethos of the list.

Stop it! I never complained about the advocacy of non sectarian sentiments like

the " advocacy of forgiveness " .

>

[Guest guest]

On 6/19/07, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

> Stop it! I never complained about the advocacy of non sectarian sentiments

> like the " advocacy of forgiveness " .

I didn't say you did, so don't blame me for it this time. I said

quite clearly in my summary that there was an explicit reference to

what you would call " sectarianism. "

Chris

[Guest guest]

said: Are we not all here to discuss and share nourishing concepts?

and I can't agree more. I just joined this group and nearly all I've read

has been about religion! Enough already, take it offlist!

--

Sheilah in Costa Rica

[Guest guest]

,

> I wasn't aware that you'd resigned. This is unfortunate news, as

> Wanita has also resigned, and there's no way I have enough time at

> present to moderate the list all by myself.

>

> If you'd like to discuss this further offlist, that would be fine,

> but I hope you'll reconsider.

Oh and yes I'll discuss this offlist. I was thinking my work here was

pretty much done but if you need me to hang around with the job we can

discuss it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 6/19/07, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Excuse me, but I have to object. I am not an atheist because of

> dogma or faith, I don't believe in gods because I see no evidence of

> same. As such I am an EMPIRICAL atheist -- or technically, in the

> most rigorous sense of the word, an agnostic, because I don't pretend

> to have an explanation for the origins of the universe.

>

> We now return you to your regularly-scheduled squabbling.

>

>

>

,

That's nonsense. You hold to a number of premises/assumptions that are

not given to empirical analysis, especially regarding your theory of

knowledge, and by which you then proceed to attempt to understand the

world. Those indutibles are pre-theoretical, and therefore *religious*

in nature.

Welcome back to the squabbling. :-)

Although unlike you I am still unable to make regularly scheduled appearances.

--

" Who loves not women, wine and song remains a fool his whole life long. "

Luther

[Guest guest]

On 6/19/07, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Excuse me, but I have to object. I am not an atheist because of

> dogma or faith, I don't believe in gods because I see no evidence of

> same. As such I am an EMPIRICAL atheist -- or technically, in the

> most rigorous sense of the word, an agnostic, because I don't pretend

> to have an explanation for the origins of the universe.

,

Am I missing something? Is not evolution, at least the run of the mill

variety, an attempt to explain the origins of the universe, among

other things? Or are you not an evolutionist?

--

" Who loves not women, wine and song remains a fool his whole life long. "

Luther

[Guest guest]

On 6/19/07, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> >> > Excuse me, but I have to object. I am not an atheist because of

> >> > dogma or faith, I don't believe in gods because I see no evidence of

> >> > same. As such I am an EMPIRICAL atheist -- or technically, in the

> >> > most rigorous sense of the word, an agnostic, because I don't pretend

> >> > to have an explanation for the origins of the universe.

> >

> > ³This is just plain siliness. Your epistemological understanding of

> > empiricism is an assumption, a presupposition, and thus a dogma.

> >

> > Chris²

> >

> > As a joke, that¹s pretty good. I fear that it¹s not, however.

Gene,

Other than the fact wrote it :-) why do you find it funny? You

essentially agreed to what is saying in a post back on December

6, 2004 when you were interacting with me on the subject of science

and the necessary presuppositions to do science (although I realize

you would not call those assumptions " religious " ):

[GS] Also, you make the following claim: " Science quite properly depends on a

number of assumptions and presuppositions that are NOT scientific, yet

without such assumptions the scientific enterprise could not proceed.

[MM] These underlying assumptions, as the Dutch philosopher Dooyeweerd

pointed out, are pre-theorectical, and thus *religious* in nature. "

[GS] Obviously the first part is true. Science MUST depend on

presuppositions and

assumptions that are not themselves scientific. But is the sense that you

call these religious the same sense that we call, say, Christianity a

religion?

Just curious.

/I think you and ought to get together over a glass of scotch at

the next WAPF convention. Who knows, you might find each other's

company enjoyable, or at the very least entertaining :-))

//maybe you both can make it up for the 2008 convention I'm planning

to hold on the west coast.

--

" Who loves not women, wine and song remains a fool his whole life long. "

Luther