I am done with Wrong Planet!! !

Post Reply New Topic

? PPR stands for politics, philosophy & religion.

I think mods would view reading the sticky at the top of PPR as the equivalent of that, and actually permission only doesn't make it truly accessible in the full meaning of the word.

Don't you think, that using PPR to "let off steam" is just alienating and/or or dissuading the less vocal members from feeling able to use it? I do. PPR should be for all, not only those that "don't mind" some peoples' extreme views on the meaning of the word debate, or certain members' sarcastic attacks. It's all very well to hide it under the guise of "attacking the idea not the person" but even mods have fallen foul of this by virtue of misinterpretation of what exactly constitutes the idea vs the person. I have seen attacking and belittling someone's behaviour, which is the same as attacking them personally. The trouble is, human nature being what it is, rules get misinterpreted according to someone's own set of values.

Quite. And who says that God isn't a scientific concept? I once saw a documentary which I think was about the nature of the human soul and life after death, or at least was about quantum physics and the properties of everything and it discussed the human soul as a scientific concept. There were contributions from scientists on the matter, I wish I could remember this programme and look it up, but it was some time ago. Basically, (I might be a bit woolly here but the gist is correct) they did some either experiments or advanced theorising, involving viewing everything at a seriously tiny level. They did a computer representation showing everything as actually being on a matrix, and it had something to do with human energy definitely existing after the physical body dies, and posed the question why couldn't that be as a soul which carries on elsewhere as a form of energy. Energy is never lost it merely transforms. So my point being (following that vague and very fuzzy explanation) is that if scientifically they can prove that something exists which could constitute a soul, why could not something exist scientifically which constitutes God (another form of energy). So Walrus, you say God is non-scientific so cannot be proven...dah,dah! Could you even be wrong? And should it be so, the entire premise of your reasoning, simply falls apart.

Like I say, no-one knows everything. No-one even knows all there is to know about their particular field of expertise. They just know a lot of what is possible to understand from a human perspective.

philosophic debate over such concepts > Can you prove axioms.

"An axiom, or postulate, is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy."

I do appreciate your point, but my response to this stands, otherwise we are back to the 'Why is a chair a chair' argument on every single topic.

Debating if the concept of integers actually exists can happen in PPR if someone chooses to post it.

Because threads are taken to PPR when debate gets heated maybe it needs a new title. 'The HOT topic thread'?

That's very true. All I'm saying is that it's useless to put others down for their lack of knowledge. What would be more useful is if those people constructively corrected/updated the person on their knowledge (so they knew they had more choices). Aiming insults at them doesn't help anyone because it doesn't inform them of anything, therefore they won't have new info that could influence existing/introduce more choices, except the choice to insult back, or walk away.

I don't usually speak for others but to me The Walrus is supporting peoples right to believe in god(s) if they so choose

Affirmative. But he is saying that God is not a scientific concept so people cannot be asked to prove the existence of God to have a valid belief (at least that was my understanding of what he said). What I am saying, that he doesn't know that God is not a scientific concept, so if that element of his justification falls apart, hence the rest does too.

Basically even if he were right (which I dispute), his logic is flawed.

When I said let off steam I meant with regard to expressing political/philosophical views, without being censored for them. Even in a thread where people can express unpopular views, personal attacks and abuse should not be allowed, that is an abuse of free speech.

BTW I've never been in there, so I have no idea how bad it is. I always avoid political and religious debate, too many psychopaths trying to browbeat other debaters into submission.

Some detectable energy that may be constituted as a 'soul' but has not been proven can not then be extrapolated to mean any concept without any scientific evidence could also be true. It can be used to attempt to argue this point but it will not be using scientific methods.

Soon this thread will be moved to PPR.

The issue is that the title is misleading to some, like the OP. It is the part of the site where any subject that becomes an argument of principle is relegated, with a number of members there circling like vultures ready for fresh meat.

Now you're just splitting hairs...and going off point a little. If we cannot definitely say God exists (in whatever form) we cannot definitively say s/he doesn't either - no matter whether there is a scientific method to test it. Human understanding may not be evolved enough to comprehend in the necessary way but that isn't the same as saying that a scientific method doesn't exist. We may just not have found it yet. (BTW isn't it neat that this whole thread, which started off to do with God, has come right back round to God, without any intention by anyone of it doing so, food for thought right there). So why is Walrus saying that it's a valid belief for religious people to have, but not valid for other types of belief or understanding of evidence/information just because science hasn't tested it yet or it hasn't been proven in some way?

I have...and like I said maybe I misunderstood, but I think I remember having messaged a mod about personal attacks and they decided it didn't matter because it was in the PPR forum. But whatever to each their own, I tend to avoid that forum now as I am sick of being treated like an idiot because I don't like some of the ways the world works and think humanity could do better.

Ah, I misunderstood your somewhat ambiguous terminology there. Yes it is an abuse of free speech, but there are members who don't think so and if a disclaimer at the top makes it OK and people are misinterpreting what constitutes a personal attack, backed up by mods then it will always be hellish for some more fragile members, who may want a very philosophical or religious or political debate but don't want to be mercilessly flamed to do so. Glad we're on the same page.

Whirlingmind
I've finished speaking for The Walrus, my status is a full blooded atheist, I rejected the idea of god at sunday school when i was 4. I believe that you do not hold a faith either so I'm not going to bother with this one, thanks.

Fully agree with this, it does seem to me that some members use this area to unload their frustrations. Shame we can't shift the boundaries of the site around a bit to allow decent discussions.