Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think this takes it a step too far. There are many things for which there may be no evidence, that still happened or is true.
Simple example: there is no evidence that I made my bed yesterday. Does that prove that I didn't make my bed?
Phet, I get your point, and won't entirely disagree. But you need a better example.... there is lots of evidence that you exist, lots of evidence that beds exist, and lots of evidence that you have one. There may even be evidence that you have made your bed in the past. It's a simple coin toss as to whether you made it yesterday or not.
In contrast, we have none of that foundational evidence for the existence of god(s)... and it's much more than a coin toss as to what these never-demonstrated beings did or did not do.
[ETA: That may just be a longer way of saying what 1insider said while I was typing: The existence of gods is a fantastical claim that demands more evidence (or at least a little). You making your bed is not a fantastical claim... no matter how messy you are!]
Last edited by HeelaMonster; 06-14-2021 at 11:56 AM..
The trouble is that posters in those threads didn't even try to maintain any relevance to Religion or Spirituality. Can you provide any reason you think we should be moderating threads about quantum mechanics?
We already know the members won't report problems they see. Instead of reporting, they respond and keep the threads going.
I looked at the previously linked threads you reference, and I do not concur that all were off topic (some were!).
As example, a primary held belief by many is the literal interpretation of Genesis 1 (and 2). That specifically precludes that evolution of life is a reality. To post science that refutes the creation myth I would suggest is an integral part of a general discussion with in the R&S main forum and likely the Pagan subforum. Again, I understand why it may be excluded from the others, even though those forums are not restricted to those beliefs, but ABOUT them.
Discussion of archaeology when it comes to claims of the phenomena and occurrences in the Middle East similarly should be on topic, and not excluded. Discussing real facts as opposed to beliefs is an important part of discussion, do you not agree?
I can make the same arguments when it comes to astronomy, DNA genetics and various dating regimes (carbon, stratigraphy, paleomagnatism etc.). All are valid, factual and often refute scriptural claims.
Without being allowed to fully incorporate these in the discussion, we now are only down to opinions. As the saying goes, "you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts". Not being allowed to discuss these types of relevant issues takes a lot away from true discourse, and it largely becomes a game of "Didn't!" and "Did!".
the problem is that a political agenda, like phets trying to fight religion, get in the way of progressing through beliefs to see what ones work. Better stated are ones that are consistent with observation.
Simple, elegent, claims like a living a living system explain a lot and really match what we see. That belief, although I am not a woo guy, at least has evidence and is sound enough to fill the woo whole.
Some are avoiding such a simple claim and/or attack the people making them because some are for for some other reason is easy to top see.
Religion didn't cause the most harm. People knowing better and still buying into "Ok, but we have the same goals and are fighting for you too" are. A selfish baseline that cost many people freedom and liberty.
"beating a dead horse" ... there aint no god or gods of any kind" is that. Atheist believe in many things that I would even call religious looking. And have nothing to do with bad religion.
Phet, I get your point, and won't entirely disagree. But you need a better example.... there is lots of evidence that you exist, lots of evidence that beds exist, and lots of evidence that you have one. There may even be evidence that you have made your bed in the past. It's a simple coin toss as to whether you made it yesterday or not.
In contrast, we have none of that foundational evidence for the existence of god(s)... and it's much more than a coin toss as to what these never-demonstrated beings did or did not do.
[ETA: That may just be a longer way of saying what 1insider said while I was typing: The existence of gods is a fantastical claim that demands more evidence (or at least a little). You making your bed is not a fantastical claim... no matter how messy you are!]
Well, the bible is "some" evidence. But then again, if we must accept the bible as conclusive evidence, then one must also accept the Tipitaka as conclusive evidence for Buddhist beliefs.
I looked at the previously linked threads you reference, and I do not concur that all were off topic (some were!).
As example, a primary held belief by many is the literal interpretation of Genesis 1 (and 2). That specifically precludes that evolution of life is a reality. To post science that refutes the creation myth I would suggest is an integral part of a general discussion with in the R&S main forum and likely the Pagan subforum. Again, I understand why it may be excluded from the others, even though those forums are not restricted to those beliefs, but ABOUT them.
Discussion of archaeology when it comes to claims of the phenomena and occurrences in the Middle East similarly should be on topic, and not excluded. Discussing real facts as opposed to beliefs is an important part of discussion, do you not agree?
I can make the same arguments when it comes to astronomy, DNA genetics and various dating regimes (carbon, stratigraphy, paleomagnatism etc.). All are valid, factual and often refute scriptural claims.
Without being allowed to fully incorporate these in the discussion, we now are only down to opinions. As the saying goes, "you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts". Not being allowed to discuss these types of relevant issues takes a lot away from true discourse, and it largely becomes a game of "Didn't!" and "Did!".
Please reconsider the rule.
Mensa is basically right on this. I remember threads that interested me, at least based on the OP, that then devolved into (literally) pages of pure science. Even as a former science teacher, that's not what I'm here for. And, the mods gave warning after warning after warning. To no avail. As a result, the abuse had to be put to rest.
Mensa is basically right on this. I remember threads that interested me, at least based on the OP, that then devolved into (literally) pages of pure science. Even as a former science teacher, that's not what I'm here for. And, the mods gave warning after warning after warning. To no avail. As a result, the abuse had to be put to rest.
The situation removes ANY possibility of educating those ignorant of science about even the existence of science that contradicts their religious rationale since they are unlikely to visit the science forum. It actually contradicts your professed goal to convince religious people not to try to impose their views on society, phet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
