Religion Forum

Steven Clark2 said:

Arthur Sanders74 said:... so you're saying Christians (people) drove progress, rather than Christianity (the religion) itself. A crucial distinction!

Where exactly do you see a fundamental difference? 😁 Though I think I follow: you want me to draw an analogy, implying it wasn't America that won bronze in the World Cup, but the soccer players. 👍

... ...

'A fundamental difference' lies in the fact that those people were, heaven forbid, and Christians.

And you—or people like you—would have achieved that same progress even if religions didn't exist, since the sole aim of Christianity
(meaning belief in Jesus, Yahweh, and the Holy Spirit)
is strictly 'eternal life,' which is what this association of three gods promotes.

Scientific discoveries, for instance, are tied to the scientific method,
(obviously, hence why they're called scientific)
but 'Christian methods,' for example, are something else entirely—being utterly useless, they are just as unwanted by science as they are by progress.

What clouds some people's perspective is the reality that Christianity acted as an 'exceptionally long-term occupier,' meaning in that role, as the sole arbiter, it either sanctioned or prohibited certain activities.

coppersailor28 said:'There’s a massive, fundamental difference here.It’s just... people who were, god help us, actually human. I'm ready. Send over the posts you need me to rework. I'll keep the tone loose, sarcastic, and rambly—just like the original poster—while making sure everything feels 100% American and follows all those specific entity swaps you laid out. Standing by. Christians..

And honestly, you think those same people would’ve pushed through that much progress even if religion didn't exist? Like, seriously? As if Christianity itself wasn't baked right into the foundation of how we got here.
(basically, just having faith in Jesus, Yahweh, and the Holy Spirit)
The whole point of this is just that "eternal life" nonsense they’re pushing—the stuff being peddled by that association and those three gods. Honestly, what else would you expect?

Scientific breakthroughs—I mean, let's be real here—are pretty much inseparable from the scientific method itself, right?
I mean, honestly, that's exactly why they're called that, isn't it? scientific)
Look, saying things like "Christian methods" is... I don't know, it's just something else entirely—honestly, they're basically useless. It’s just as bad for science as it is for actual progress—honestly, it's a mess..

What some people seem to be missing—which really just clouds their entire perspective—is the simple fact that Christianity was...An exceptionally long-term occupier.So, back then, he was basically sitting there in that position—acting as the sole judge and jury—deciding whether certain activities got the green light or were shot down entirely.

That’s exactly how I’d have answered Steven Clark2, too. Especially if I were being extra loud about it.

Steven Clark2 said:Jesuit Contribution Contribution to science:

I just hope religious institutions never get enough cash to run their own private armies. Basically just pseudo-scientific institutes.It’s a total farce.

It turns out folks back in the Middle Ages didn't actually think the Earth was flat. Just thought it would be nice if people stopped acting like they did. Yeah, sure. And I’m the King of England.,

Early church fathers were all about that flat-Earth creationism, picturing a tiny little world sitting right in the middle of everything, surrounded by these sparks—stars—that could just drop down on us at any moment. All because of how they read the Bible.

She isn't the only one, either. There's more. I'm not sure what you mean by "naslov" here—if you're looking for a title or just starting a thread, give me something to work with.

There's way too much of it. apologetic Looking for some books that actually defend the faith? Just one-sided lies. Whatever.

Anyone who thinks the medieval Catholic Church, Christianity, or religion in general has always been at odds with science clearly hasn't done their homework. Or whether they were systematically persecuting and killing, torturing, or burning people at the stake. Scientists, believers in...

The Church had a real thing for science, so they basically backed it systematically. They just let them rot, honestly. Just ignored everything and let those books crumble away. While she was busy printing her little treatises on God and Jesus. And sure, she obviously "systematically persecuted and killed, tortured, and burned" anyone who didn't fit her vibe.

That's exactly what I'm getting at. Religion gets a free pass because they let it slide.. 😁

So you're basically implying the religion PDF is full of lies.

Whatever. What else is there to say about that Catholic Church? Corruption, pedophilia, shady business deals... what else you got? (which, honestly, is just how any other organization works anyway), a Nobody is actually arguing against that, not even Catholics.

You're gonna get the objective truth about Catholicism from me. So, you think I'm some kind of Protestant creationist? Give me a break.Yeah, you know how it is.

Let’s be real, nobody can actually argue with the fact that the Catholic Church, Christianity in general, and religions at large have made massive contributions to modern society—everything from science and art to education and philosophy. It's just one of those things you can't deny.

Christianity includes, just like any other religious group, a huge variety of people doing all sorts of things. But Christian ideology is a different beast entirely.

The anti-science crowd—the ones fueling superstitions, creationism, stubbornness, regressive thinking, Flat Earth nonsense, conservatism, antisemitism, demonology, hate speech, conspiracy theories, misogyny, and hatred toward every other faith or sect... if they had any power, they’d drag us straight back to a dark, Christian Middle Ages.

And honestly, the same applies to any other religion, especially Islam. ☕

There's a thread on this:

Arthur Sanders74 said:That is exactly how I would have responded to Steven Clark2. And quite boldly, too.

It is actually better that you didn't. Such a response misses the point entirely. Or, if I want to be precise, it represents a typically pseudo-scientific and anti-religious stance.

Essentially, it results in a Level 2.0 argument: "The soccer players won the bronze medal, but alas, they were Americans or citizens of the US." 🤣 However, if you are determined to follow this line of reasoning to its conclusion, then you really ought to know this:

The roman Catholic Church gave more financial and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries , fra The recovery of Ancient Learning during the latiti Middle Ages into The Enlightenment

This quote comes from the book The Sun in The Church : Cathedrals as Solar Observatories.

So, if you have an INSTITUTION that funds and supports a soccer team—are the players solely responsible for winning the World Cup? Are the fans of that team just bootlickers? Any analogy comparing a criminal organization to the Catholic Church is purely coincidental, but regardless, the Church did fund and support the advancement of science. Just look at this:

During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church actively supported a great deal of science, but it also decided that philosophical speculation should not impinge on theology. Ironically, by keeping philosophers focused on nature instead of metaphysics, the limitations set by the Church may even have benefited science in the long term. Furthermore, and contrary to popular belief, the Church never supported the idea that the earth is flat, never banned human dissection, never banned the zero, and certainly never burnt anyone at the stake for scientific ideas.

This is from the book I mentioned in my previous comment, The Genesis of science : How The Christian Middle Ages Launched The Scientific Revolution. There is another fascinating source, Galileo goes to Jail and Other Myths about science and Religion. Take a look at the contents of that book, which discusses about 25 different myths regarding the relationship between science and religion. This isn't common knowledge for most forum users; even those interested in history, or perhaps historians themselves, aren't always aware of this. On page 99, you will find this chapter: Myth 3. that Medieval Christians Taught that The Earth Was flat. In the introduction, it states:

The Twin assertions that The Catholic church opposed science and that Catholics themselves contributed Little to its development ara widespread. These assertions are often casually assumed in a wide range of publications and among many parts of the general public. Yet there is very little truth in either statement. Neither claim emerges fra historical study or historical sources. Instead, both are in large measure the products of self-serving political or nationalistic rhetoric and old-fashioned xenophobia. Let’s look first AT The creation and perpetuation of Thes myths and then examine The contrasting testimony of The historical record.

These are highly relevant sources, and there are certainly many more out there. If you truly believe that an institution responsible for funding and supporting science isn't credited for that success—but rather just its unfortunate individual members—then you likely know very little about how institutions function, let alone the history of science. While I can't dive too deep into the origins of this myth here due to space constraints, it is vital to understand that there are several theories regarding the relationship between science and religion. One such theory is the so-called conflict thesis. According to this view:

The conflict thesis is a historiographical approach in the history of science that originated in the 19th century with John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White. It maintains that there is an intrinsic intellectual conflict between religion and science, and that it inevitably leads to hostility.

If you spent a bit more time reading up on Draper and White, you would find some quite fascinating information, but since we are short on time:

The consensus among historians of science is that the thesis has long been discredited, which explains the rejection of the thesis by contemporary scholars. Into the 21st century, historians of science widely accept a complexity thesis.

To put it simply: anyone who maintains that Catholics were opposed to science during the Middle Ages is clinging to a myth that is historically inaccurate; if it were true, it wouldn't be a myth. Furthermore, anyone insisting that science and religion are inherently at odds should probably seriously re-evaluate their stance and, at the very least, aim to be more informed than those "contemporary scholars" they rely on. That said, many non-religious people today—secularists and humanists alike—don't mind the fact that science and religion aren't in conflict. To really grasp this, one needs a bit more depth than what is provided in an elementary school history class. This is why comments like these shouldn't come as a surprise:

coppersailor28 said:'The fundamental difference' lies in the individuals who were, heaven forbid, and Christians.

You and people like you would have achieved that same progress even if religions didn't exist, because the sole goal of Christianity itself
(meaning the belief in God Jesus, God Yahweh, and God the Holy Spirit)
is exclusively 'eternal life,' which is what this association of the Trinity promotes.

Scientific discoveries, for instance, are strictly tied to the scientific method
(I mean, that's why they are called scientific),
whereas 'Christian methods,' for example, are something else entirely—so useless that they are actually unwanted both by science and by general progress.

If you actually had any connection to the world of science, you would never write something like this. For those forum members who might enjoy some actual reading material, check out the article De-mythologizing The Science-Religion Conflict : an interview with Peter Harrison:

First, Christianity provided The motivation for the formal investigation of Nature, which was understood as God’s “other book.” Second, Christian ideas provided som of The necessary presuppositions for modern science , most notably , The idea of laws of Nature, understood as divine edicts. A third example would be that Christianity provided The values that gave social legitimacy to modern science. This accounts for why science was consolidated and integrated into western culture in an unprecedented way. In short, the history of modern science cannot be fully understood without an appreciation of The Key rola played by religion.

That "in short" summary might seem sufficient for some, especially since everything is available online. However, there is much more rigorous literature out there than what I've mentioned—works that dive into all the points I've raised with far greater depth. It’s just that, frankly, the average person isn't typically keeping up with those specific academic circles.

Anthony Perez9 said:I sincerely hope that religious institutions will never again amass such immense wealth that they possess the means to maintain their own private interests. Pseudo-scientific institutes.That is nothing more than a farce.

If that's a farce, then your comment takes the cake. I’d love to see you dig up some actual, relevant literature that defines these so-called "quasi-scientific institutions." I wasn't saying they don't exist; I'm simply asking to see the evidence.

Anthony Perez9 said:Early church fathers certainly championed a rather flat, creationist view of a young Earth positioned at the center of the universe—a small sphere surrounded by tiny sparks that we perceive as stars, which could occasionally fall to the ground. This was all done in strict adherence to the Bible.

Based on the aforementioned book. Myth 3. that Medieval Christians Taught that The Earth Was flatIt isn't always as straightforward as it might seem at first glance.

Anthony Perez9 said:There is an overwhelming number of apologetic books out there that attempt to defend the faith through incredibly one-sided and dishonest arguments.

I would suggest directing this inquiry toward historians of science, as they are the ones actually documenting these developments; I am not entirely convinced their motivations are rooted in mere apology. It strikes me as quite odd—how can you claim not to be an apologist for some anti-Christian or anti-religious ideology, yet the scientists who produce these massive volumes attempting to prove that much of what we believe regarding the Church and various religions is nothing more than myth are viewed as apologists? Honestly, I don't think I will ever truly grasp that distinction. 🤔 If history were written according to your specific interpretation, we would never actually arrive at the truths we hold today. If you continue to insist on these claims—even when the historical record makes the actual truth abundantly clear—then you are struggling with a deep-seated dogmatism and an anti-religious bias. Frankly, this contradicts the very spirit of science, which you seem to constantly invoke while simultaneously demonstrating a profound lack of understanding regarding its true nature. To be perfectly honest, there is absolutely no connection between your position and actual scientific inquiry. In such a state, your perspective becomes entirely irrelevant.

Anthony Perez9 said:The Church suffered from a certain sickness regarding science, which led it to systematically neglect the field, allowing vital scientific texts to simply rot away while it focused all its energy on printing treatises about God and Jesus. And of course, we hear the usual narrative that it "systematically persecuted and killed, tortured, and burned" anyone who dared to disagree with its doctrines.

Honestly, you just have to take someone at their word. I mean, Saint Peter, are you really out here knowing everything? LoL Quote

Anthony Perez9 said:You are essentially insinuating that the information in the Religion PDF is nothing but lies.

Of course. One only needs to read through your comments to realize exactly what kind of "expert" we are dealing with here. 🤣

Anthony Perez9 said:You’re going to tell us all about Catholicism with such "objectivity," aren't you? Since you're a Protestant creationist and all, right?

Where exactly did I make such a claim about myself? Furthermore, even if I had—why on earth would being a Protestant creationist be considered shameful? Are there some new forum rules I’m unaware of that forbid being a certain way, or is there a specific topic that's now off-limits? This feels like a direct personal attack, and I find myself wondering what the justification is. Should I truly feel embarrassed simply because someone of your caliber chooses to speak about me in such a manner? 🤣 To me feels like nothing less than a witch hunt—it’s clearly just a way to mock and insult me personally. I actually mentioned this to you yesterday on the Religion board when you read me the exact same thing. I made my position clear: go ahead and report me using the flag icon. Perhaps I’ll even get banned for religious beliefs that I haven't even officially declared. This forum has seen all sorts of bans since its inception, so honestly, this wouldn't even surprise me. 😁

Anthony Perez9 said:Just like any other religious group, Christianity is composed of a diverse array of individuals who have pursued vastly different paths and professions. We shouldn't confuse the people within the faith with Christian ideology itself; they are two distinct things.

Yes, you’re absolutely right—it’s something else entirely. To you, it might just feel like some sleepy little village in rural Spain, but around here, we call it rocket science.

Anthony Perez9 said:We are witnessing an anti-scientific phenomenon that nurtures a toxic cocktail of superstitions among its followers: creationism, stubbornness, regressive thinking, Flat Earth theories, extreme conservatism, antisemitism, demonology, hate speech, conspiracy theories, misogyny, and an intense hostility toward all other religions, sects, and perceived heretics. If these forces were ever to seize power, they would plunge us straight back into a dark, regressive era.

The same logic applies to any other religion, especially Islam.

It is true that the historical literature contains everything you mentioned, but it is just as true what I have presented, and I haven't made a single thing up: almost everything I've said is backed by well-documented sources. However, since it seems to be your specialty to lash out at science, religion, and fellow forum members alike, don't you realize that through this very dogmatism and exclusivity, you are falling into your own apologetic trap? 🤔 If you constantly repeat the same narrow points while denying everything else, don't you essentially become a type of fundamentalist or apologist yourself? 🤔 Look at how much you're ignoring; you make such grand declarations, yet it is surely better to be an informed "Protestant creationist" than a guru of pseudoscience. 🤣

But don't worry, I'll see you over in the thread regarding the Catholic Church's contribution to the development of science during the Middle Ages, where you, coppersailor28, RobinUd, and all the rest of the pseudoscientists, trolls, spammers, and vitriolic types can gather. For people like you, science is the only cure. 🙂 I originally opened that topic back in 2010 because anti-Catholic voices always try to hide behind some version of "science," constantly trolling various threads with claims that Catholics suppressed scientific progress—typical pseudoscientific dogmas. In the end, it turned out that none of them could actually produce anything more substantial than empty rhetoric.

That being said, none of this implies that deities, spirits, angels, or pink sheep (or goats, or whatever) actually exist, nor does anyone "have" to be a believer, a Catholic, a cross-licker, or anything of the sort. One can be a secular Christian, a free-style spiritualist, a non-denominational believer, a liberal believer, a philosophical theist, a Satanist, or a pantheist. And as of yesterday, we have a brand new group joining the fray: Protestant creationists, who apparently deserve their own special category in the Religion subforum. 🤣

You’ve missed the point entirely. This discussion was started because of a purely technical question, which is really the only reason the author opened this thread in the first place; specifically, does insulting someone's faith and its followers actually constitute hate speech? That is the sole issue at hand.

Steven Clark2 said:And where on earth did I claim that about myself? Besides, even if I did: why is being a Protestant creationist supposedly shameful?

Did I actually say it was "shameful"? No, I didn't. It’s just a kind of religious narrow-mindedness and fanaticism that pushes against modern science, humanistic principles, and education just to protect ancient religious myths. You'd basically be undermining all of that by casting doubt on evolutionary theory and stuff like that.

but I guess it's obviously better to be an informed "Protestant creationist" than some pseudo-science guru. 🤣

Don't worry, I'll see you on the other thread.

Not gonna happen. I don't argue with creationists; it's a waste of breath. They're just religious fanatics who stick to their own script and refuse to acknowledge any scientific papers or basic rationality. ☕

mistyotter35 said:is insulting someone's faith and its followers considered hate speech? Just that.

Personal insults are against the rules here and rightfully earn you a ban.

Is rational criticism of religions hate speech? Of course not, but religious fanatics would love to label it as such just to see people persecuted.

Most of the truly vitriolic insults and hate speech actually come from believers themselves when they talk about people of other faiths or those without one. To them, outsiders are "servants of Satan, possessed by devilish lies, immoral degenerates crushed by Noin flood... hunted by the holy Inquisition, destined for painful eternal fire." But no, that’s not hate speech—that’s just being pious. 😛

mistyotter35 said:because the author started this thread

Nicholas Barnes74? Her entire body of work is basically just a PDF version of religion. 😂

As someone who identifies as a staunch atheist, I have to say it feels a bit misplaced when discussions about religion start bleeding into a forum that just isn't designed for that kind of thing. 😁

To put it quite simply: there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest the existence of a gentlemanly deity, a god, a creator, a holy father, a third eye, lizard people, supernatural phenomena, or anything of that nature.

There are plenty of other threads out there specifically intended for topics like religion, spirituality, theology, astrology, or mysticism...

Steven Clark2 said:Better that way, honestly.

🤦

Cut it out, man. Don't mess with me. 🤣

brightviper29 said:As a massive atheist and a total non-believer, it honestly bugs me when people start dragging religion into a PDF that clearly wasn't meant for that kind of talk. 😁

Simply put: There isn't a single shred of evidence to back that up. Seriously, where are we getting this from? So, what if there actually *was* some kind of gentleman up there—you know, a God, a Creator, a Holy Father, a third eye, or even just a bunch of lizard people? Or maybe just some weird supernatural phenomenon we can't quite wrap our heads around? Just a thought...

There’s just a whole bunch of PDFs floating around out there—stuff meant to serve as religion, some kind of alternative lifestyle guide, theology, horoscopes, mysticism... you name it. It's all just part of that endless digital rabbit hole, really.

I'm with you on that! 👍

Steven Clark2 said:... ... ...
... ... ...

If you actually knew anything about science, you wouldn't be writing something like this (quoting my post #22, @coppersailor28) ...

Look at him now...
By his own logic, if anyone believes that the religion called Christianity HAS a connection to science, they should probably consider me the most influential scientist in the universe.

Steven Clark2 said:Just for those forum users who prefer reading things on a napkin, here is the De-mythologizing The Science-Religion Conflict : an interview with Peter Harrison article:

First, Christianity provided The motivation for the formal investigation of Nature. Second, Christian ideas provided som of The necessary presuppositions for modern science , most notably , The idea of laws of Nature. Third, Christianity provided The values that gave social legitimacy to modern science. This accounts for why science was consolidated and integrated into western culture in an unprecedented way. In short, the history of modern science cannot be fully understood without an appreciation of The Key rola played by religion.

That "in short" summary is plenty for the smart ones, since everything is available online. There is much more serious literature covering all of this in far greater detail, but average people aren't really keeping up.

Steven Clark2 said:First, Christianity provided The motivation for the formal investigation of Nature...

Right. So the "science" known as Christianity didn't just motivate people to investigate nature; it presented nature as a book where not a single tiny twig or leaf will change until the world ends:

Jesus in the Bible:

"Truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter nor the smallest stroke in the Law will pass away until all things are accomplished. Therefore, anyone who breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
(Mt 5, 17-19)

Steven Clark2 said:... Second, Christian ideas provided som of The necessary presuppositions for modern science , most notably , The idea of laws of Nature ...

Basically, the Christian God decided it would be a good idea to define how everything He created actually functions.
Extremely difficult to grasp the master plan, isn't it?

Steven Clark2 said:... A third example would be that Christianity provided The values that gave social legitimacy to modern science. This accounts for why science was consolidated and integrated into western culture in an unprecedented way. ...

So the fundamental assumption here is that science is essentially Western.

Steven Clark2 said:... in short , The history of modern science cannot be fully understood without an appreciation of The Key rola played by religion.

In short, Christianity was the only boundary science ever had...

Anthony Perez9 said:Did I actually call it "shameful"? No, I didn't. That is simply one form of religious stubbornness and fanaticism that runs contrary to modern science, humanistic principles, and education for the sake of ancient religious myths. You would essentially be undermining all of that by casting doubt (throwing mud) on the theory of evolution and such.

Just hush now; it's a good thing you aren't like the people you just described. 🤣

Anthony Perez9 said:You won't live to see it.

Oh, give me a break. You've just grown up and lost your edge, that's all. 🤣

Anthony Perez9 said:I don't argue with creationists; there's no point. They are religious fanatics who just insist on doing things their own way and refuse to acknowledge any scientific papers or rationality. ☕

And where on earth have you seen them? The moderators chased them off long ago. 🤣 Besides, who cares if they do show up? It’ll be easy enough to raise an outcry, report them to the administration, and the problem will be solved. Creationists are down there. 🙂 Especially those of the Protestant variety—they really are the worst. 🤣

mistyotter35 said:You've missed the point entirely. This is a purely technical question, which is why the author started the thread in the first place: does insulting someone's faith and its followers constitute hate speech? That is all.

Now, this is actually a very good question. Enough with the joking around; let's get a little serious for a moment. 🙂

You know, it depends on who you ask. Just type Google CDL-AD(2008)026add into your search bar.

It isn't my forum password, but if you type that in, you'll find this (unless you're in North Korea, in which case you'll get a bullet to the head lol):I’ve been reflecting quite a bit lately on the delicate balance between Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Religion, specifically regarding how we handle the regulation and prosecution of blasphemy, religious insult, and incitement to religious hatred. This brings to mind the significant work done by the Venice Commission during its 76th Plenary Session held in Venice back in October 2008. It is a complex, often sensitive subject, but the findings from that session provide such vital clarity. One of the most profound takeaways is the principle that individuals must tolerate and accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs, and even the propagation by others of doctrines hostile to their Faith. It sounds harsh to some, I know—and I certainly struggle with the discomfort of it myself—but it is essential for a functioning, pluralistic society. The Court recognized that States may adopt measures restricting the Freedom of expression in attacks that are judged to be incitement to hatred, but there is a very fine line to tread here. In this respect, The Court considers that the religious beliefs of others deserve respect, yet we must be careful not to allow legal protections to become tools for silencing legitimate discourse or dissent. It is a difficult tightrope to walk, but studying these frameworks helps us understand how to protect both the sanctity of belief and the necessity of free speech in a modern democracy.

I’ve never been much of a fan of overly complicated titles, but I suppose there are times when they are simply unavoidable. That leads me to this somewhat cryptic quote:



The CEO report from this commission is... I am here..

In my view, this forum needs to strike a careful balance between freedom of belief and freedom of thought—two concepts that, while related, are certainly not the same thing. This community is essentially a microcosm of a multicultural society; we have all sorts of people here, including those with vastly different religious convictions. On one hand, I believe that criticizing those beliefs, expressing doubt, or questioning them is not only welcome but actually quite desirable. However, on the other hand, I think we occasionally need to draw a line to ensure we don't cross over into what looks more like religious insult or harassment, which can quickly spiral into hate speech.

The Court has consistently maintained that individuals exercising their right to practice their religion—whether they belong to a majority group or a minority—cannot realistically expect total immunity from criticism. It is part of life that they must tolerate and accept The denial by others of their religious beliefs and even the propagation by others of doctrines hostile to their Faith. That said, the Court recognised that States May adopt measures restricting The Freedom of expression in attacks that ara judged to be offensive, particularly when those attacks touch upon matters held sacred by believers. From this perspective, in this respect , The Court considers that The religious beliefs of others a constitute legitimate "rights of others" under the protections outlined in Article 10(2).

It can be quite difficult to strike the right balance or draw a clear line here, but I truly believe that neither extreme is the correct path. There is absolutely no need to "protect" this forum from legitimate criticism of religious beliefs, yet there is equally no need to be "lawless" in those critiques. We have to recognize that not all criticism is actually critique—sometimes, what we see are simply insults, disparaging remarks, and similar behavior.

Furthermore, I believe any critique of non-religious views is just as valid and necessary as any other. There really isn't a distinction between religious and non-religious opinions when it comes to scrutiny—all of them should be open to criticism. The real problem arises when people operate under the assumption that only religion deserves to be questioned. Honestly, it feels like that mindset has become a bit of a dogma here on this forum, and quite a narrow-minded one at that. For instance, look at the posts from coppersailor28 or Anthony Perez9. They seem to start from the premise that statements such as:

In short, Christianity was the only true boundary for science...

They present themselves as these grand, sweeping scientific declarations, but in reality, they are nothing more than empty, anti-scientific rhetoric. Honestly, there is absolutely nothing of substance there. To put it bluntly—as some might crudely say—it is all just pure nonsense. 🤣 In much the same way, these specific claims and viewpoints are highly susceptible to criticism, especially when we see how various historians of science argue the exact opposite. If coppersailor28 were looking at a PDF of a history textbook, they would have been laughed out of the room long ago unless they provided actual references to back up such ridiculous assertions. But then again, I suppose that doesn't really matter to him, given how deeply he seems entrenched in his so-called dogmas. Historical negationism is a deeply troubling phenomenon that strikes at the very heart of our shared understanding of reality. When we talk about the intentional distortion or outright denial of established historical facts, we aren't just discussing academic disagreements or differing interpretations of data. We are talking about a deliberate attempt to dismantle the truth for the sake of political leverage or ideological purity. It is, quite frankly, a bit disheartening to witness how easily certain narratives can be weaponized to erase the lived experiences of entire groups of people. By stripping away the context of past atrocities or minimizing the impact of systemic injustices, negationists seek to create a sanitized version of history that serves a specific, often harmful, agenda. This isn't just "revisionism" in the healthy, scholarly sense—which is vital for progress—it is a calculated assault on memory itself. I find myself struggling with how to effectively counter these claims when they spread so rapidly through modern digital channels. It feels like a constant uphill battle to maintain the integrity of the historical record against those who would rather rewrite the past than confront the uncomfortable truths it holds. Truth should be our anchor, yet negationism attempts to cut that anchor loose, leaving us adrift in a sea of manufactured falsehoods.It is truly exhausting when you try to engage someone by offering several top-notch sources, only to have them continue shouting the exact same narrative—one that stands in total opposition to the very references you provided. They reject every piece of evidence, yet they insist they "just know" the truth, repeating the same tired talking points they've been peddling forever. It is quite ironic: they claim science is the only cure for ignorance, but the moment you offer that cure, they reject it entirely, leaving them with nothing but dogma. And honestly, it isn't just one dogma; they have enough of them to fill a buffet. LoL

When we have forum members who believe that "science" is inherently anti-religious by default—viewing it as the "ultimate weapon" against faith, and then using that very "weapon" to constantly insult and mock religious convictions—it leads to a total degradation of discourse. To me, that is a true breeding ground for fundamentalism, exclusivism, intolerance, and narrow-mindedness. I believe this mindset needs to be completely debunked, because one of the biggest myths many users here cling to is precisely this one. If you touch this myth, you’ll likely face the wrath of users who believe in it more fervently than some people believe in the Virgin Mary (LoL). The irony is that science itself demonstrates things aren't quite as they seem—but no, they cling to this myth at all costs because, like all myths, it can't survive being challenged. This fabricated antagonism between religion and science emerged in the 19th century, and as I mentioned, many still refuse to let go. We need to expose this and show that such antagonism only exists when both science and religion are understood through a very one-sided lens. Anyone who believes there is an inherent conflict between science and religion either 1) doesn't understand science, 2) doesn't understand religion, or 3) understands neither. Understanding the nature of this tension requires a bit more effort than just counting on your fingers. This is why we see perennial conflicts in the Religion section; a specific group of users stubbornly upholds the so-called conflict thesis, despite it being widely rejected:

The consensus among historians of science is that the thesis has long been discredited, which explains the rejection of the thesis by contemporary scholars. Into the 21st century, historians of science widely accept a complexity thesis.

Of course, there are explanations for why the conflict thesis remains the sole theory for many regarding the relationship between science and religion, but our space doesn't allow us to dive too deep into that here. Generally speaking, this topic has been thoroughly addressed in modern histories of science.

In other words: solve the problem of the science-religion antagonism, and 90% of the issues in the Religion section will vanish. LoL. A little bickering among religious folks is fine; after all, they are human beings, and that's just part of human nature. But the primary, massive problem is this myth of conflict. Get rid of that myth, or at least manage it better—and you've solved almost everything here. It would be an instant fix, guaranteed.

I also get the impression that perhaps this forum views itself as being "above" earthly laws or even the laws of the US, much like the Pope or the Catholic Church ( 😁 ), which is fine. However, even in the US, there is an eye toward maintaining "religious peace"—or at least preventing its excessive disruption—and there's probably a good reason for that.

Indeed, the European Court of Human Rights has held that, in order to ensure religious peace, States have an obligation to avoid as far as possible expressions that are gratuitously offensive to others and thus an infringement of their rights, and which therefore do not contribute to any form of public debate capable of furthering progress in human affairs.

Maybe we could learn something from all this and make this forum a more pleasant place? How many users have actually left this forum specifically because of the toxic atmosphere and the imbalance in discussions? Why should anyone have to endure constant trolls and spammers? Do we tolerate them at the expense of everyone else? Sometimes it feels like we sacrifice meaningful discussions and high-quality contributors just to accommodate those who constantly shout and clamor without ever contributing anything of substance. The ones who write quality content are the ones who leave.

Another point I think is vital: the forum needs to be protected from the religious insults that believers often hurl at one another. We should ensure that someone waking up on the wrong side of the bed doesn't walk away thinking that only "unbelievers" pose a threat to the faithful. Anthony Perez9 is right on this; he was often targeted with nonsense simply because he couldn't restrain himself in a debate. Not all believers are as saintly as they imagine; a quick glance at the Religion section convinces me there are more trolls there now than ever before. facepalm The mass of believers struggles with dogmatism, exclusivism, and intolerance. What we need is a healthy balance—a moderate model where opinions are respected a bit more. Even if we don't like what someone says, we don't need to resort to insults. I suppose a little venting is understandable when life gets stressful, but it shouldn't be a daily occurrence; that crosses the line into being unhealthy. LoL

You are very welcome.

Since the religion pdf advice and complaints thread was already set up nicely by the mod, what’s the point of these endless, rambling rants? 🙄

Steven Clark2 said:And where exactly did you see them? The mods kicked them out ages ago.
🤣 Besides, who cares if they show up again? We'll just make a scene, report them to the admins, and call it a day. It's just creationists down there. 🙂 Especially those Protestant types; they’re the absolute worst.

You're lying about the moderation on the religion sub again. There are always creationists there, including the most hardline types (people riding dinosaurs, Young Earth, Noah's flood...).

When we have forum users who assume "science" is inherently anti-religious by default.

No, it's actually that religious opinion is the negation of the scientific method. It relies on absolutes, holy books, undeniable divine revelation for all eternity, dogmas, magic, "just believe don't verify," and so on.

Anthony Perez9 is right here; people often fed him nonsense because they didn't know how to keep it civil. Not all believers are as kind-hearted as they think they are; a quick glance at the Religion section convinced me there are more trolls there than ever before.
The masses of believers struggle with dogmatism, exclusivity, and intolerance.

🙂

Sam Alvarez4 said:Since the mods were nice enough to set up this thread for advice and complaints regarding the religion pdf, what's the point of these endless, mile-long rants? 🙄

It just doesn't make sense.
The mods opened it, sure.
But my whole point is that they actually need to be replaced for that specific sub-forum.
I mean, what's the use if the judge is the one suing you—and then turns around to sentence you?
I don't think I can handle a religion forum moderated by biased mods who basically despise religion. Well, I guess I can, obviously.
I used to send in those little reports back when I actually believed in the system, but all I ever got were bans. When I'd ask why, it would just say "trolling." I'd try to ask for the specific post where I was supposedly trolling, and... nothing.

Nicole Carter82 said:It just doesn't make sense.
A mod opened it.
I honestly think they need to change the staff for that specific subforum.
What’s the point if the judge is also the one filing the lawsuit against you?
I don't think the religion forum should be moderated by biased mods who clearly despise religion. Though, I guess they can, apparently.
I kept sending little flags back when I still believed in this place, but all I got were bans. When I ask why, they just say "trolling." I ask them to show me the post where I'm trolling, and... nothing.

Out of my last ten warnings, eight came from other subforums, and they were issued by seven different moderators.

Yeah, the issue in religion is definitely 🕺

Anthony Perez9 said:You are once again being untruthful regarding the moderation of the religion PDF. It is always populated by creationists, including the most narrow-minded varieties—those who believe people rode dinosaurs, advocate for a Young Earth, or cling to the story of Noah's flood.

Look, I would never dream of being untruthful, but I honestly feel like you might have missed the core point of my comment. 😁 It doesn't matter; that was my mistake.

Anthony Perez9 said:I have to disagree; I believe religious dogma is essentially the antithesis of the scientific method. It relies on absolutes, sacred texts, and claims of undeniable divine revelation that supposedly stand for all eternity. Instead of empirical testing, it leans on dogmas and mysticism—essentially telling you to simply "believe" rather than to question or verify.

That is quite a bold theory of religion you've presented there. You’ll first have to prove to me that 1) it is the only possible theory of religion, and 2) that you actually possess a correct understanding and interpretation of it—which, if I am being honest with myself, is something you will likely never achieve. 🤣 Ali N-I-K-A-D.

Perhaps, though I should probably add a caveat here—if we were strictly discussing the religious fundamentalism found within certain faiths, I might have a point. However, that is a far cry from what I am actually addressing. Depending on which author you consult, there are several different theories regarding religion; some scholars even categorize as many as nine distinct frameworks. If anyone wants to engage in a truly serious discussion about the relationship between religion and science, they will need to bring much more to the table than what you’ve presented. This isn't just a matter of historical events; it involves deep philosophical questions and theological nuances as well. Furthermore, religion is a legitimate field of study within rigorous academic circles, not something relegated solely to the pews of a church. 🤣 It is essentially a subject for interdisciplinary study, spanning fields like history, ethnography, psychology, and sociology. In academic circles, we refer to this as a conceptual model for the study of religion. At this level of discourse, the petty online arguments and internet bickering regarding faith are completely irrelevant. Furthermore, neurology and cognitive science also actively engage with the study of religion.

Anyway, keep this in mind:

While I have previously contended that atheism doesn't inherently necessitate hostility toward religion, we must acknowledge that certain atheists are indeed antagonistic. This hostility isn't limited to fundamentalist sects—which often draw fire from both atheists and moderate believers alike—but extends much further. I would characterize this specific brand of active antagonism as "militant" atheism. To be hostile in this capacity involves far more than a simple, profound disagreement with faith; it borders on genuine animosity and is defined by a proactive desire to eradicate all forms of religious belief entirely. In my view, militant atheists typically advance two specific claims that you simply won't find in the arguments of moderate atheists. The first is the assertion that religion is demonstrably false or utter nonsense, and the second is the conviction that it is, almost invariably, a source of harm.

...

I find myself feeling a great deal of sympathy for this militant perspective, yet I hesitate to fully embrace it due to a basic methodological principle I’ve mentioned before: avoid dogmatism. To me, that means always leaving the door slightly ajar for the possibility that you might be wrong. In my view, the weight of the arguments consistently points toward the falsity of religion. However, since atheists and believers don't share a common set of standards for judging these deep existential questions, I feel that simply insisting my own criteria are the only valid ones would be purely dogmatic. For me, it is sufficient to conclude that the evidence and reasoning lead toward the falsity of religion. I would like to think that any rational person would reach the same conclusion, but clearly, many do not. I believe it is much healthier to at least acknowledge that there might be some substance to what they believe, rather than simply stamping my foot and cursing their perceived stupidity. Though, if I am being honest, I do succumb to that impulse from time to time as well.

A statement from Julian Baggini, who is an atheist. It comes from his book Atheism: A Brief Insight. This link takes you directly to the subsection titled Militant Atheism.

Nicole Carter82 said:It just doesn't make any sense.
The moderator opened this.
I truly believe they need to change the staff for this sub-forum.
What good is it if the judge is also the one prosecuting you?
I don't think the religion forum can be moderated by biased mods who hold religion in contempt. I mean, I suppose they can, obviously.
I used to send in reports back when I still believed, but all I ever got were bans. When I asked why, it just said "trolling." When I asked for the specific post where I was supposedly trolling, I got nothing.

That is true, but it is also true that quite often the report system didn't work even when your comments were the subject (it wasn't me reporting you, but others were). Regardless of the fact that you certainly didn't deserve many of the insulting comments directed at you, no one else deserved that kind of treatment from you either. If you expect people to treat you with a bit more respect, then you should show that same respect yourself. You have to care less about what others think of your beliefs, even if you are right about everything.

Actually, I hold the theory that the closer a person is to "truth"—any truth—the greater their tolerance becomes. As they drift further away from it, their tolerance steadily declines.

bluemason3 said:Out of my last 10 cards, 8 actually came from other subforums—and they were issued by 7 different moderators.

Yeah, I guess religion is the real issue here 🕺

I don't really get why you're even chiming in?
Are you just trying to prove you're stalking me better than I can stalk myself?
Look, I'm talking about the topic at hand. If I happened to pick up a card or two in the last few years, honestly, I've already forgotten about it. They probably had a point, too. If I actually need to dig up the stats, just bear with me.

Nicole Carter82 said:

bluemason3 said:...

I don't see why you're even showing up here.
...

@bluemason3,
users on the sub-forum Religion don't have a seal,
users on the sub-forum Religion don't have rights...

Look, friend, I have no idea who you are or why you're bothering to chime in.