New mod

  • Thread starter Thread starter Therese_Martin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Therese_Martin

Guest
Notice:

Rachel Malloy is the new moderator for Philosophy.
 
Therese_Martin said:
Notice:

Rachel Malloy is the new moderator for Philosophy.
Click to expand...
Good Evening old bean, I think it would be jolly decent to see you out there getting stuck into the debates while also making sure any naughty fellows are kept in line. 👍
 
twopekinguys said:
Does that mean that Michael Francis is taking over “Non-Catholic” religions?
Click to expand...
No. Currently that forum does not have an official moderator, but will be monitored by all the mods as they have time.
 
What does this mean for the ‘temporary’ ban on discussion of valid and relevant aspects of religious philosophy (ie atheism and the scientifically proven alternative to Creation)?
 
wanstronian said:
What does this mean for the ‘temporary’ ban on discussion of valid and relevant aspects of religious philosophy (ie atheism and the scientifically proven alternative to Creation)?
Click to expand...
In order for you to evolve into a human you first had to be created. If you have scientific evidence proving you do not exist I would be interested in seeing it.
 
wanstronian said:
What does this mean for the ‘temporary’ ban on discussion of valid and relevant aspects of religious philosophy (ie atheism and the scientifically proven alternative to Creation)?
Click to expand...
Does one mean the popular scientific guesswork which depends on very questionable assumptions and very imaginative speculations regarding the spiritual intent of human nature?

Seriously, what is going to happen with the temporary ban? Just curious.
 
grannymh said:
Does one mean the popular scientific guesswork which depends on very questionable assumptions and very imaginative speculations regarding the spiritual intent of human nature?
I’m not aware of that one. I’m referring to the confirmed scientific theory for which evidence from various scientific disciplines is abundant, 100% consistent, and empirically verifiable. The one where the conclusion is derived from the facts, as opposed to the one where the facts are cherry-picked so as not to disprove
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
wanstronian said:
grannymh;6627133:
Does one mean the popular scientific guesswork which depends on very questionable assumptions and very imaginative speculations regarding the spiritual intent of human nature?
I’m not aware of that one. I’m referring to the confirmed scientific theory for which evidence from various scientific disciplines is abundant, 100% consistent, and empirically verifiable. The one where the conclusion is derived from the facts, as opposed to the one where the facts are cherry-picked so as not to disprove
Click to expand...
a presupposed conclusion.

(Let’s stop now before we get into trouble… It may already be too late!)
Have no fear! We’re in neutral territory. You regard “confirmed scientific theory for which evidence from various scientific disciplines is abundant, 100% consistent, and empirically verifiable” as the surest form of knowledge - overlooking the fact that we are the ones who interpret and obtain all our information about reality. The surest form of knowledge is that which we experience within ourselves…
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Therese_Martin said:
Never fear. The mods basically work “off the same book.” If there are any questions, members are free to contact forumadmin@catholic.com for clarification, as always.
Click to expand...
“Off the same book” – would that be like the Q document?
And when a mod posts does that mean it isn’t really form him/her so much as a product of the Moderatorial Community? 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top