How religion can harm young minds...

[thedoc]

WARNING!!!: Malice, name-calling, vulgarity is a one-way ticket to my ignore list!!!

Would you delineate what you mean here, and please be very specific, so that I can include them in my next post.

[Ned]

WARNING!!!: Malice, name-calling, vulgarity is a one-way ticket to my ignore list!!!

Would you delineate what you mean here, and please be very specific, so that I can include them in my next post.

I thought that it was clear enough. What is it you don't understand?

WARNING!!!: Malice, name-calling, vulgarity is a one-way ticket to my ignore list!!!

[thedoc]

You seem to have misunderstood my post. I never said the Catholic Church opposed science. I merely stated that their actions were performed with a mindset that had the inadvertent side effect of hindering scientific progress. It is incorrect to blame the Church alone for this, as the feudal structure of Europe at the time also made scientific progress quite difficult. On the contrary, the Church actually tried to encourage scientific progress, mostly to no avail. Scientific progress is about critical thought, critical thought is about the freedom to ask questions and to find their answers. In medieval Europe, that freedom was lacking and hence there was no scientific progress. Let alone the Church, I never even said Christianity opposed science. What slowed down the scientific advance in the Dark Ages was a combination of factors that led to the halt of critical thinking, and one of the areas in which this halt in thinking manifested itself is, undoubtedly, religion.

In a conversation in my church, it was observed that our congregation was a bit of an anomaly, because in that group we were asking questions and seeking answers to some basic questions about our religion, and in fact the whole congregation is in the habit of questioning what we are doing and why? There is no person who tells us what to think and how to do things, with the exceptions of state regulations on the "Day care" that uses the building through the week.

[thedoc]

I thought that it was clear enough. What is it you don't understand?

WARNING!!!: Malice, name-calling, vulgarity is a one-way ticket to my ignore list!!!

I suppose I wasn't clear enough, but I was looking for specific examples of the different offences.

[Ned]

I thought that it was clear enough. What is it you don't understand?

WARNING!!!: Malice, name-calling, vulgarity is a one-way ticket to my ignore list!!!

I suppose I wasn't clear enough, but I was looking for specific examples of the different offences.

It is like the definition of pornography: When I see it, I know it.

Usually it is quite obvious that the person making it is not talking about the topic but wants to insult me.

Sorry, no detailed rules, I am the sole judge to decide whom I want to talk to and whom I don't.

As I made my announcement in the "Why are some people filled with mindless hatred?" thread"

If you want to talk to me, present your arguments in a clear, logical manner, and I will answer in kind. It doesn't matter if we disagree, we can work on it and see if we can find common ground.

However, leave the malice out of it: obscenity, vulgarity, personal insults, name calling, slurs, etc. At the first sign of any of it, into my ignore list you go and I will never see another thing you wrote on this forum (unless quoted by somebody I do read).

What can be simpler and easier to understand?

[thedoc]

Then please consider that I am including Malice, name-calling, and vulgarity in this post, and do with it what you will.

[Ned]

When I put someone into my ignore list I always announce it publicly and quote the offending post/slur. They have no doubt why I did that. If I misunderstood something, they can always PM me and explain. SO far I received only one PM about my ignore list from one of the sequestered and I explained why, offering to reverse my decision if they agreed to be civilized. All I got as an answer was vulgarity and more insults. They know who they are and why they are there.

[marjoram_blues]

Off-topic

Ned wrote: I am the sole judge to decide whom I want to talk to and whom I don't.

Why the need to be so obnoxious about it ?
Just to annoy and feel superior?
Get over yourself.
And yes, I realise that I am feeding into your wee world of craziness.
Will feed the fire no more.
Kill the fuel.

[Ned]

Then please consider that I am including Malice, name-calling, and vulgarity in this post, and do with it what you will.

I don't need to do anything with it.

Why should I?

[ReliStuPhD]

I made my announcement in the "Why are some people filled with mindless hatred?" thread. I assumed everyone saw it.

If it's not on this subform, I won't see it. I don't have time for more debating.

If you want to talk to me, present your arguments in a clear, logical manner, and I will answer in kind. It doesn't matter if we disagree, we can work on it and see if we can find common ground.

However, leave the malice out of it: obscenity, vulgarity, personal insults, name calling, slurs, etc. At the first sign of any of it, into my ignore list you go and I will never see another thing you wrote on this forum (unless quoted by somebody I do read).

Yes, I missed this. Thanks for posting it here.

[ReliStuPhD]

EDIT: It did not display my signature. Why? On other forums it is automatic. I went to my control panel but did not see a way to activate it.

Can anyone tell me?

As far as I know, signatures do not display on this site. I believe it's by design.

[ReliStuPhD]

I hope you're not intentionally trying to embarrass me with that comment, if you were it worked. I need to admit that I have more that one or two on my list, but my criteria are a bit different, usually after I have determined that the user has nothing to say that is of any interest or relevance, I will ignore them just to speed up my reading of the thread. There are two exceptions to this, in that often others will quote the person on ignore and I see the comment anyway. Also there is a "Display this Post" on the posts being ignored, and if that particular member makes enough comments that are interesting and not particularly abusive, I can always reverse the decision to ignore them.

Ooops. My apologies. I did not intend to embarrass you on purpose. I don't visit the other subforms, so maybe this one doesn't attract the worst of the worst.

As for the number on your ignore list, I won't let it affect my sense that you're a pretty level-headed guy regardless.

[Ned]

As for the number on your ignore list, I won't let it affect my sense that you're a pretty level-headed guy regardless.

Sure, you theists stick together!

Nepotism!!!

[ReliStuPhD]

My bad. I think that might have been an issue with the auto quote function, as I didn't type any name in personally.

No worries. The quoting function sometimes trips me up as well.

As for the actual content of your post, it just shows you have a poor grasp on the history of the church, science, and the philosophical underpinnings that tie them to one another. There's plenty of scholarship out there on the subject. It would behoove you to read some of it. Actually, even Wikipedia will do for starters. Have fun the last section. You know, the one that says you're basically relying on late 19th century propaganda.

You seem to have misunderstood my post. I never said the Catholic Church opposed science. I merely stated that their actions were performed with a mindset that had the inadvertent side effect of hindering scientific progress. It is incorrect to blame the Church alone for this, as the feudal structure of Europe at the time also made scientific progress quite difficult. On the contrary, the Church actually tried to encourage scientific progress, mostly to no avail. Scientific progress is about critical thought, critical thought is about the freedom to ask questions and to find their answers. In medieval Europe, that freedom was lacking and hence there was no scientific progress. Let alone the Church, I never even said Christianity opposed science. What slowed down the scientific advance in the Dark Ages was a combination of factors that led to the halt of critical thinking, and one of the areas in which this halt in thinking manifested itself is, undoubtedly, religion.

Well, my response was to your comment that "this is so wrong that I can't help myself but to do so" in response to thedoc's comment that "Christianity enabled the sciences to develop in the west while Eastern religions had the opposite effect of not promoting science at all. In the authors opinion it was the Christian mind set that allowed science and technology to develop." This second comment is very much in line with what historians hold to be the case with respect to the Church and science. Now that you've clarified your position, it makes a bit more sense, though it's still not quite in line with current scholarship concerning the so-called "Dark Ages." There's quite a bit of recent work out there that shows that our ideas about scientific progress during the Middle Ages to be rather mistaken.

[ReliStuPhD]

As for the number on your ignore list, I won't let it affect my sense that you're a pretty level-headed guy regardless.

Sure, you theists stick together!

Nepotism!!!

Ha!