The Post That Got Me Shadow-Banned From Sic et Non

[Chewbarker]

Howdy folks. I've been posting at Sic et Non for a few weeks, but was recently shadow-banned. That means only I can see my posts. If I log out of Sic et Non then my posts have have the message "comment has been deleted." Sic et Non is nothing more than an echo chamber. It's too bad that DanielPeterson feels threatened by any posts that don't fit with his worldview, regardless of how professional those posts might be.

If anyone is slightly interested in what got me banned, it was this post:


Daniel Peterson’s link, “The STARFORGE simulation accounts for all the phenomena thought to influence the birth of new stars.”

Much thanks. That was very fascinating. And more fascinating was that science didn’t even need to account for a god(s) in this simulation. It’s all explained through science.

After viewing this fascinating simulation of how stars are created and populate the universe, I find myself largely in agreement with Tyson and Hawking.

"There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."
-Stephen Hawking

"God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that gets smaller and smaller as time goes on "
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... qus_thread

[Dr Exiled]

I got shadow banned last year and Moksha as well. It's what DCP does. I think DCP likes to mix it up but likes control more so he can trot out his victimhood shtick without pushback.

[Doctor Steuss]

If it’s any consolation, posting here will make it more likely he’ll read your comments than posting there.

[Sledge]

This place is an echo chamber, too, even if there is no shadow-banning. You're just giving up one echo chamber for another.

[huckelberry]

Chewbarker,
So for a believer in God like myself how do you think I would see star formation?. Do I see God as creating a mess of stuff that requires the angel brigade to go out and cobble stars together or would I see God as creating a universe whose intrinsic properties and principals form stars by paths scientist can discover?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

This place is an echo chamber, too, even if there is no shadow-banning. You're just giving up one echo chamber for another.

Anyone can post here. Not only can they post here freely, but they’re encouraged to do so. We’d love to have more faithful types posting, but not at the expense of having a moderator protect their feelings - in the non-Celestial forums. They’re going to have contrarian opinions because this is a discussion board, not a self-affirming echo chamber as evidenced by the Dehlin threads.

Additionally, if LDS folks want a more genial experience the forum is set up for that. They can post freely in the Celestial forum where the dialogue is generally protected against degenerate posting.

- Doc

[Chewbarker]

Huckleberry,

I would have no idea how you would see star formation. Most religious traditions have their own very different creation stories or myths. And even in the various religious traditions there are different views of creation.

I'm assuming you believe in the Christian God of the Bible? So, I guess it would depend on if you are a literal creationist or if you have faith in a more nuanced view of creation.

[malkie]

This place is an echo chamber, too, even if there is no shadow-banning. You're just giving up one echo chamber for another.

Is it just me, or did anyone else hear a non-echo just now?

[huckelberry]

Huckleberry,

I would have no idea how you would see star formation. Most religious traditions have their own very different creation stories or myths. And even in the various religious traditions there are different views of creation.

I'm assuming you believe in the Christian God of the Bible? So, I guess it would depend on if you are a literal creationist or if you have faith in a more nuanced view of creation.

Chewbarker,
I believe as the creeds state, God created the heavens and earth, all things visible and invisible. That would make me a literal creationists. Of course the details of that simple statement in my mind would depend upon my understanding of the heavens and earth. I am sure my understanding is quiet extensive and in depth compared to that of people who llved over a thousand years ago. Then on the other hand my understanding of star formation is simplified compared to that of someone like TNeil deGrasse Tyson.

[Rivendale]

Howdy folks. I've been posting at Sic et Non for a few weeks, but was recently shadow-banned. That means only I can see my posts. If I log out of Sic et Non then my posts have have the message "comment has been deleted." Sic et Non is nothing more than an echo chamber. It's too bad that DanielPeterson feels threatened by any posts that don't fit with his worldview, regardless of how professional those posts might be.

If anyone is slightly interested in what got me banned, it was this post:


Daniel Peterson’s link, “The STARFORGE simulation accounts for all the phenomena thought to influence the birth of new stars.”

Much thanks. That was very fascinating. And more fascinating was that science didn’t even need to account for a god(s) in this simulation. It’s all explained through science.

After viewing this fascinating simulation of how stars are created and populate the universe, I find myself largely in agreement with Tyson and Hawking.

"There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."
-Stephen Hawking

"God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that gets smaller and smaller as time goes on "
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... qus_thread

The quote that I thought was a tad bit overloaded with religious entitlement before gemli countered........

Just yesterday I reviewed a paper on how spirituality and religion are a proven aid in treatment of substance abuse. It astonishes me how such science (if you can call my lamentable field of psychology a science) is ignored by those who claim science is their god, and rage on endlessly about how it is superior to believe in no god at all. As you pointed out, Dan, there is an overwhelming body of evidence that belief in God and practice of one's religion are reliably connected to better mental and physical health. Pragmatism! Religion works.

Related to that, Republicans and conservatives are reliably more happy, as measured by Ed Diener's Satisfaction With Life questionnaire, than liberals and Democrats. This shocking finding has been parsed numerous ways. Art Brooks shows clearly that conservatives give more to charity and do more good works, which does make one happier. But the best explanation is that people on the right tend to be more religious, so it appears that religion again is the key to a happier life. Motivating us to give and serve boosts the happiness/health value of religious practice. In Salt Lake there is LDS Hospital, St. Mark's Hospital, and Holy Cross Hospital. I seek in vain for the Christopher Hitchens or Stephen Hawking hospital. I can't even find an atheist clinic!