Why me??!!!

[Imparcticle]

I am unable to post a thread in the Religion forum. I have a great argument considering a flaw in the Trinity and I'm dying to see if I'm right in my analysis. But NO. The computer tells me I am not "allowed to access this page". :mad:

Will anyone do the honors of explaining why this is so?

[Greg Bernhardt]

The global permissions are set to new posting negative and replying positive. We are trying to phase out the religion forum.

[Phobos]

We would like this to be a science site, so we closed the religion forum. For now, it's still around as an archive in which you can reply to old topics but cannot start any new ones.

So don't worry....it's not you.

[Intergenuity]

Are you closing the philosophy forum as well and if not will religious philosophy based threads be allowed there?

[Greg Bernhardt]

Are you closing the philosophy forum as well and if not will religious philosophy based threads be allowed there?

philosophy forum will not be closed and you can post god philosophy topics as long as they don't pertain to a certain religion.

[Scott Sieger]

philosophy forum will not be closed and you can post god philosophy topics as long as they don't pertain to a certain religion.

Greg could I direct you to the closing of a thread by kerrie "the responsibility of God" and the sticky that spells out kerries view on religious topics being posted.

There appears to be some confusion with what can and can not be posted.

Unfortunately I feel that if you wish to avoid religious conflict any question about the philosophy of God is going to have to be banned. Otherwise the moderator is in for a tough time.

[Tom Mattson]

Unfortunately I feel that if you wish to avoid religious conflict any question about the philosophy of God is going to have to be banned. Otherwise the moderator is in for a tough time.

I looked at your locked topic, and I think it is religious and not philosophical for one very important reason:

It presupposes the existence of god.

If you want to philosophize about god at PF, then it has to really be philosophy. We agree to host ontological arguments and arguments for intelligent design (even though we will rip them to shreds :biggrin: ) because they at least start from the natural and attempt to reason for the supernatural. But if you want to do that in reverse, assuming the existence of the supernatural and arguing from there, then we will not host it.

[Evo]

I vote to end any thread that mentions a god, deity, omnipotent goat, or any such thing.

It is all too obvious what the starters of these threads are pushing.

There are so many places on the internet where people can get on their religious soap boxes and condemn those that do not think like they do. We do not need that here at PF.

[Scott Sieger]

Unfortunately the purpose off my thread was not to verify the existence of a religious ideologue but to eventually through discussion allow the logic to flow long enough to come to the conlusion that the Universe in it's entirety is "God"
And not the single minded entity that is often referred to but a multiplistic impotent God. That being the universe. Religious logic effectively nullifiying it's own existence.

However I refer you to Gregs response that God topics can be posted with the restriction of not referring to a "certain" religion.

So please excuse me for my confusion.

[Tom Mattson]

However I refer you to Gregs response that God topics can be posted with the restriction of not referring to a "certain" religion.


Just to be perfectly clear, I don't think that the expression "certain religion" is limited only to those faiths that are established with millions of members. Topics regarding personal, homegrown religions are also not welcome. But as I said, if you want to post an argument pertaining to god, that does not presuppose the existence of god, then by all means go right ahead.

[Scott Sieger]

BTW does discussion about universal consciousness or the existence of a soul or the philosphy behind the conflict between evolution of self determinism create a conflict for the moderators.

As I see it this situation will eventually lead to a very poor philosophical forum and I really think this inhibition of thougth due to the "God" restiction will create a poverty of expression.

Simply because whilst I am an athiest I still believe in God but by my definition not a religious one. Maybe I should referr to the concept of holistic universe by another name like "Bruce" or somethng.....( chuckles)

[Scott Sieger]

Just to be perfectly clear, I don't think that the expression "certain religion" is limited only to those faiths that are established with millions of members. Topics regarding personal, homegrown religions are also not welcome. But as I said, if you want to post an argument pertaining to god, that does not presuppose the existence of god, then by all means go right ahead.

Fair enough......

[Tom Mattson]

BTW does discussion about universal consciousness or the existence of a soul or the philosphy behind the conflict between evolution of self determinism create a conflict for the moderators.


I would give the same answer as before. A good rule of thumb is that if you are starting by presupposing the supernatural, then it will likely be seen as religious, and locked. If you are not starting from that perspective, then it will likely be left alone.


As I see it this situation will eventually lead to a very poor philosophical forum


That's one opinion. Mine is that the abandonment of logic and analysis that characterizes religious thought will lead to a very poor philosophical forum, but that's just me.


and I really think this inhibition of thougth due to the "God" restiction will create a poverty of expression.


I hardly think we're in danger of that. Just look at the vast spectrum of topics that are hosted here.


Simply because whilst I am an athiest I still believe in God but by my definition not a religious one.


You're not an atheist.


Maybe I should referr to the concept of holistic universe by another name like "Bruce" or somethng.....( chuckles)

No need to play games with labels, just argue your case, without assuming that it's true from the outset. That's philosophy.

[Evo]

As I see it this situation will eventually lead to a very poor philosophical forum and I really think this inhibition of thougth due to the "God" restiction will create a poverty of expression.
If I am not mistaken, the first philosophers made a point of trying to reason about the world around them without the influence of gods, myths, religious knowledge, etc... so they might have a true understanding of the nature of things.

[Scott Sieger]

Would discussions of Pantheism be allowed?

[Scott Sieger]

That's one opinion. Mine is that the abandonment of logic and analysis that characterizes religious thought will lead to a very poor philosophical forum, but that's just me.

Not just you ...I happen to agree which is why the use of a subforum is a good way to avoid conflict in the philosophical forum. Basically it allows those persons who are religiously inclined to have a venue and also a place where you can shift topics too if they get out of hand.

The principle being that you will continue to get a problem with this issue from persons ( not me BTW ) that you need some way of controlling with out loosing your membership. By having a "flack zone" ( religious sub forum or a psuedo science forum) you give your self an alternative method of management and allow your membership to prosper..... My opinion BTW

I personally have no problem with what ever you decide and appreciate the forum that is available regardless......

[Tom Mattson]

Not just you ...I happen to agree which is why the use of a subforum is a good way to avoid conflict in the philosophical forum.


We used to have a Religion subforum, and it required too much babysitting. Basically, the Mentor had to read each and every post, and had to lock threads more often than in other Forums. It just wasn't worth it.


Basically it allows those persons who are religiously inclined to have a venue and also a place where you can shift topics too if they get out of hand.


Religous people have many venues online, and we respectfully ask that the religious among us go to one of them to satisfy that need.

Rapture Ready (http://www.rr-bb.com)
Bible Forums Dot Org (http://bibleforums.org/forum)
Theology Online (http://www.theologyonline.com)

I personally have no problem with what ever you decide and appreciate the forum that is available regardless......

Thank you, we appreciate that.

[Kerrie]

BTW does discussion about universal consciousness or the existence of a soul or the philosphy behind the conflict between evolution of self determinism create a conflict for the moderators.

As I see it this situation will eventually lead to a very poor philosophical forum and I really think this inhibition of thougth due to the "God" restiction will create a poverty of expression.

Simply because whilst I am an athiest I still believe in God but by my definition not a religious one. Maybe I should referr to the concept of holistic universe by another name like "Bruce" or somethng.....( chuckles)

perfect topic for the philosophy forum, and for your information, we have had the religion forum locked for a long time now and my duties have gotten far easier...as far as you calling yourself atheist? i don't think so...

[Scott Sieger]

Why do you think I am not an Atheist? ( just curious)

[Kerrie]

atheists denounce any sort of creator, regardless of what you call it...perhaps you are a spiritualist, someone who is spiritual without acknowledging religion...

[Scott Sieger]

atheists denounce any sort of creator, regardless of what you call it...perhaps you are a spiritualist, someone who is spiritual without acknowledging religion...

Ahhh...and here in lies the point of issue.

I have never believed in a creator.....and still don't...except to say this in more humanistic terms, like procreation ( babies) art, music,cities etc....

No I don't espouse belief in creation theory.

The universe is self created, ( big bang) thus in some ideologies this would amount to God being self created. But as you have stated the title is unimportant.

From a more philosophical bent the only creator I believe in is myself and cretive abilities of others.

There fore does this translate into considering myself as a God....hmmmmm

Certainly I did not create my self as my parents had that pleasure ( or so they used to tell me :wink: ) How ever I have created my life since I had the ability to do so.

Also I do not ascribe to the normal definitions of a sentient "God" but more to the existence of a multiplistic sentient universe, a uiniversal sentience that is rendered impotent because of it's multiplistic nature.

Alas this sort of post would cause much angst and thus I haven't attempted to clear the confusion in the religious forum of old. And because it talks of universality of consciousness which leads to notions of a creator type sentient God argument I have refrained from posting in the philospohy forum.

[Kerrie]

let's keep this as a feedback topic...

[Tom Mattson]

Why do you think I am not an Atheist? ( just curious)

"atheist"="a" (Gk "no") + "theo" (Gk "god").

It don't git much simpler than that.