OK, before everyone gets bent out of shape, are we allowed to say the G-word here? You know, God.
Have you read the chart you signed when joining this forum ? There are rules
I'd say you can discuss with others about concepts you can define. You should define your concepts in order to orient the discussion in the direction you are interested in. Can you define this word please ?
The problem with starting any thread with "God" is that 99.99999999% of the time they want to discuss the Christian God and Christian beliefs in general.
I would suggest, in order to avoid this problem, use descriptors such as "supernatural being(s), dieties, gods and goddesses, etc..." that way the thread isn't as likely to make people think that you are trying to discuss a specific religion. Keep it generic and we can avoid problems. I'm 99.99999999% serious about this.
"My God, that is hilarious!"
"So yesterday, I was praying to my God, and this clown kicked me...."
"My God is better than your God."
"Stupid theist! God doesn't exist!"
"You are evil if you do not believe in God."
Basically, if you put down anyone's religious beliefs(or lack thereof) on this forum, it is a bad thing and makes you vulnerable to repercussions. Remember, tolerance is important.
Discussions on religion/atheism must be open-minded with the purpose of having the participates learn about other people's beliefs without the goal of conversion. "Debates"(if you can call them that) on religion, I believe, is, and should be, banned.
EDIT: What Evo said too.
Magnus, are you of a younger age?
How is this acceptable... that is, unless swift vengeance was dealt against the clown in question.
As I went through college, I wish I had counted how many times physics professors referred to god in class. Never in a religious way of course, but more as a way to mark where our knowledge ends.
Now that's funny. :rofl:
OK, I agree with the sentiments on the board. Perhaps its OK to discuss a supernatural being to help with events before Plank time. Hey, a "god" disrupted the symmetry of the singularity that led to the inflationary expansion. I'm liking this place. Some folks here have 10,000 posts. I'm such a newbie.
I'm not that young. Well, maybe I'm young at heart.
I thought it is G-string
I came into this thread thinking: "Golf? Why would anyone want to talk about golf?"
I thought G stood for Grafenberg
What bothers me most about religion discussions are statements like "I hate religious people". Considering that 90% or so of the world, and a majority of the US, are religious, and considering that this is an international forum, statements as such may be considered deep insults to members who are religious. It is just another example of social obnoxiousness and rudeness sanctified by the popular opinion of a small group.
Funny thing is that I didn't think about religion much anymore until I joined PF. How's that for irony!
That is why I asked him how old he was. From my observations, the young atheists are full of fire and brimstone! The older the atheist is, the less hateful towards religion they are.
The same I suppose can be said for religious folk also.
So, in addition to being more idealistic, youth are also more ideological...
There may be some truth to that, but I think it is more a sign of the times than a function of age. Due in large part to the internet, young people have grown up without the social structure that teaches basic civility.
I think the other problem is that as the religious right gained power in the Republican party over the last twenty years, political polarization intensified through theistic polarization. Sometimes it is now hard to tell the two apart.
And less tolerant and/or diplomatic.
Ivan, I wasn't aware that "I hate religious people" was acceptable commentary here. Especially that the comment isn't even substantiated or backed up in any way.
I'm entirely not a fan of hate speech regardless of who it comes from and who it's directed at and especially when it's being spewed for its own sake without even a rationalisation to go with it.
At the end of days he will get what is coming to him. . .:tongue:
Good to know.
Neither was I. Perhaps Evo didn't see the post.
In order to respect boundaries, I don't intervene in this sort of thing.
Ah, I see.
I do not so much see "I hate religious people" comments as I see comments that are negative towards religion and religious people that are often said by popular atheists and are theoretically substantiable. Things to the effect of "religious people are irrational" "religion causes wars and violence" ect.
Did you read the thread? The offending comments are there, but no reasons are given.
Part of the problem is that the fundamentalists get most of the media attention. This tends to skew the perspective of religious people, for the non-believers. But to argue against religion generally from a scientific perspective, is irrational. Science does not address matters of faith because it can't. There is no argument by which religious faith can be defeated. At worst, one can always default to "God the trickster" in order to explain all contradictions between religious beliefs [faith], and science. It never ceases to amaze me how people like Dawkins can't seem to figure this out.
Other churches tend to follow scientific teachings as well as biblical teachings and philosophies. Consider for example that while the Catholic church is famous for "denying the truth", it is argued that even the priests of old knew that Galileo was right. It seems to me that the Popes were better at delaying the telling of scientific truths, rather than denying them. In the end they admitted to the weight of the evidence. Consider that even in the 1960's, I was taught evolution theory in a Catholic school - taught by nuns. It was presented as fact along with bibilical teachings, with no qualifiers.
Note also that the church actually went easy on Galileo. He was placed under house arrest. Had it not been clear that he was right, he would have likely been put to death for such heresy.
The question has been answered.
Separate names with a comma.