Should religion have a public forum?

[Hope]

If religion is allowed to advertise beyond times and places of services and events it should have to prove its claims. Otherwise it is misrepresentation, and making promises for its product it can't keep. It's mascara stuck on false eyelashes.

Rhi, despite what some here like to claim, such proofs exist and some have been in the public domain for centuries.  Others, because of things like doctor/patient confidentiality, aren't, whilst others - despite being given the go-ahead for publication by both professionals and clients/custromers/patients (call the various types of people served by various professionals what you will) - have been turned down by the editors of professional journals.  Before you suggest that they might have been turned down on purely scientific grounds, there are people who have received rejection letters stating that the journals do not accept articles that suggest that there are elements of life that go beyond the scientific.

[Hope]

Religion and politics are very different. Politicians are expected to prove their assertions have evidence to back them up, whereas there is none to support any religious faith.

Sorry, as i've mentioned many times, and just reiterated in my last post to Rhi, there have been a number of articles written - for instance, in the medical area - that have provided evidence of the sort you want but have been rejected because they go beyond the purely scientific.

[Shaker]

Rhi, despite what some here like to claim, such proofs exist and some have been in the public domain for centuries.

Bet we're not going to hear about them here though

[Gordon]

Rhi, despite what some here like to claim, such proofs exist and some have been in the public domain for centuries.

Details please.

Others, because of things like doctor/patient confidentiality, aren't, whilst others - despite being given the go-ahead for publication by both professionals and clients/custromers/patients (call the various types of people served by various professionals what you will) - have been turned down by the editors of professional journals.

Details please.

Before you suggest that they might have been turned down on purely scientific grounds, there are people who have received rejection letters stating that the journals do not accept articles that suggest that there are elements of life that go beyond the scientific.

Details please.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Trollboy fails to notice that "religion" already has a public forum - ie, the churches, temples etc in which it does its thing - while simultaneously deriding the very secularism that protects its right to do so, and failing to notice that what he's actually upset about is restraint on the unwarranted privileges that religion would arrogate to itself - teaching its faith beliefs as facts to children for example.

Two posters have registered on the poll that religion should not have a public forum.
I havent failed in the respect you state since I included such a category in the poll. Hardly failing in noticing.

Hillside however is interested in personal abuse, and putting thoughts and words which aren't mine. Still, no doubt that kind of thing appeals to his fans and his penchant for silly mindgames.

Again a slack application of moderation allows him and his claque to go around and do this sort of thing

[Nearly Sane]

Rhi, despite what some here like to claim, such proofs exist and some have been in the public domain for centuries.  Others, because of things like doctor/patient confidentiality, aren't, whilst others - despite being given the go-ahead for publication by both professionals and clients/custromers/patients (call the various types of people served by various professionals what you will) - have been turned down by the editors of professional journals.  Before you suggest that they might have been turned down on purely scientific grounds, there are people who have received rejection letters stating that the journals do not accept articles that suggest that there are elements of life that go beyond the scientific.

Mmm misunderstanding of proof v evidence here shows your ignorance and therefore means that the post isn't even wrong.

[Hope]

Mmm misunderstanding of proof v evidence here shows your ignorance and therefore means that the post isn't even wrong.

Rhi said that religion has to 'prove its claims'.  In order to prove something, one has to provide proof, which is one form of evidence.  Evidence can be false or otherwise; proof can't.

[Nearly Sane]

Oh and of course offering claims without offering a methodology to support them despite many times being asked for it.

So once again Hope what is your methodology for supernatural claims? No methodology, no valid claim.

[Nearly Sane]

Rhi said that religion has to 'prove its claims'.  In order to prove something, one has to provide proof, which is one form of evidence.  Evidence can be false or otherwise; proof can't.

And wrong and wronger

You really don't have a clue about this stuff.

Proof is contextual. And you are using it in different contextual meanings here. Since you don't show any awareness of this, I presume it's ignorance rather than disingenuousness

[Shaker]

Details please.

Details please.

Details please.

Reckon you'll just have to 'hope' for it as usual, Gord

[ippy]

Two posters have registered on the poll that religion should not have a public forum.
I havent failed in the respect you state since I included such a category in the poll. Hardly failing in noticing.

Hillside however is interested in personal abuse, and putting thoughts and words which aren't mine. Still, no doubt that kind of thing appeals to his fans and his penchant for silly mindgames.

Again a slack application of moderation allows him and his claque to go around and do this sort of thing

Well Vlad, perhaps these two posters should have said that religion shouldn't have any kind of privileged position in or on any public forum.

ippy

[Gordon]

Rhi said that religion has to 'prove its claims'.  In order to prove something, one has to provide proof, which is one form of evidence.  Evidence can be false or otherwise; proof can't.

Prevarication.

It was you who said 'such proofs exist' in response to Rhi - so stop wriggling and produce them.

Of course you really don't understand method and evidence, hence your frequent descent into fallacies.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Religion and politics are very different. Politicians are expected to prove their assertions have evidence to back them up, whereas there is none to support any religious faith.

Not strictly true since sociolgy and social science are not exact and politics is also an arena for competing moral positions hence the validity of religion in politics.

We are not in a very religious zone in the UK of England. That's really, apart from some strange and wonderful interludes how it has always been......source J.Paxman.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not sure that any of the poll options have a great deal of bearing on a 'public forum'.  The idea of a 'public forum' is so much wider than the parameters laid out in the poll.  I have therefore not voted.

That can be corrected taking your point into account.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Prevarication.

It was you who said 'such proofs exist' in response to Rhi - so stop wriggling and produce them.

Of course you really don't understand method and evidence, hence your frequent descent into fallacies.

.....that would make another frequent descent around here

descent into fallacies, descent into shite moderation.....the list just goes on and on.

[ippy]

Reckon you'll just have to 'hope' for it as usual, Gord

You're right Shakes, maybe Hope hasn't got an answer?

I take it you do know Hope has posted this proof some time ago and it was ignored or was it dismissed, he probably posted it before this forum was set up and we missed it? It's hot today I've been doing the garden, pehapss ill ave antre bere.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well Vlad, perhaps these two posters should have said that religion shouldn't have any kind of privileged position in or on any public forum.

ippy

yeh..but they opted for a decisive ''no public forum.''

[Hope]

Prevarication.

No, it was NS who prevaricated and has continued to do so. 

It was you who said 'such proofs exist' in response to Rhi - so stop wriggling and produce them.

I, and others, have done on a number of occasions.

Of course you really don't understand method and evidence, hence your frequent descent into fallacies.

It's not that I descend into fallacies, but that I deal in areas of life that you seem to want not to exist.

[Shaker]

I, and others, have done on a number of occasions.

Jackanory ...

It's not that I descend into fallacies ...

But it is.

That's exactly what it is.

You either don't understand the fallacies that you continually commit, or you don't care.

Either way, they're still fallacies.

[Nearly Sane]

.....that would make another frequent descent around here

descent into fallacies, descent into shite moderation.....the list just goes on and on.

. In what way is a direct answer to your post 'shite moderation'. It isn't any form of moderation so why dishonestly throw that at a poster posting in a personal fashion?

Log off, give yourself a good shake, and stop painting yourself into this dull corner.

[Gordon]

No, it was NS who prevaricated and has continued to do so. 

Wrong.

I, and others, have done on a number of occasions.

Well do so again for crying out loud.

It's not that I descend into fallacies, but that I deal in areas of life that you seem to want not to exist.

Superb! Right on cue up pops another straw man.

[Nearly Sane]

No, it was NS who prevaricated and has continued to do so. 
I, and others, have done on a number of occasions.
It's not that I descend into fallacies, but that I deal in areas of life that you seem to want not to exist.

Show that they exist. Come up with a methodology. 

And I forgive your lying about me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Trollboy fails ....................... to notice that what he's actually upset about is restraint on the unwarranted privileges that religion would arrogate to itself - teaching its faith beliefs as facts to children for example.

Yes Hillside but two people want No public forum for religion.......so what kind of ''restraint'' of religion are we talking about here.....Given the revelation that there are a couple of closet totalitarians around here (see poll )?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

. In what way is a direct answer to your post 'shite moderation'. It isn't any form of moderation so why dishonestly throw that at a poster posting in a personal fashion?

Log off, give yourself a good shake, and stop painting yourself into this dull corner.

What are you on about?

[Gordon]

Yes Hillside but two people want No public forum for religion.......so what kind of ''restraint'' of religion are we talking about here.....Given the revelation that there are a couple of closet totalitarians around here (see poll )?

Have you considered, Vlad, that some might be voting tactically as to annoy you or that they aren't taking your poll seriously?