Hypocritical Board Run by Atheists: Free Speech Denied

  • Thread starter Thread starter Quantumtheologica1
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on perceived hypocrisy in moderating a philosophy forum regarding posts about God. Users express frustration over the closure of a thread titled "Therefore God Exists," while other threads questioning God's existence remain open. Moderators clarify that discussions must adhere to guidelines emphasizing logic and evidence, not religious dogma. They assert that the decision to close threads is based on the quality of arguments rather than personal beliefs. The conversation highlights tensions between free expression and adherence to philosophical standards in discussions about God.
Quantumtheologica1
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I see you close a post that's titled, Therefore God Exists, but you leave open posts that question God like, A Limit to Gods Power and Who Created God, why have you not closed these threads also? Hypocrites!

You can use metaphysics on this board to question God just not to point to God, why is that? The people who moniter this board let their own atheist or agnostics beliefs stand in the way of free expression and that is SAD!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'll leave this up to moderators.
 
Quantumtheologica1 said:
I see you close a post that's titled, Therefore God Exists, but you leave open posts that question God like, A Limit to Gods Power and Who Created God, why have you not closed these threads also? Hypocrites!

You can use metaphysics on this board to question God just not to point to God, why is that? The people who moniter this board let their own atheist or agnostics beliefs stand in the way of free expression and that is SAD!

To say that we prohibit any kind of discussion that argues in favor of the existence of a God is a mischaracterization. We allow any kind of discussion on the topic, either for or against, as long as it follows the guidelines for our philosophy forums.

Note, however, that we do https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=15840 arguments from religious doctrine, or arguments about a God or gods as characterized by any specific religious denomination (whether it be for or against).
 
Quantumtheologica1 said:
The people who moniter this board let their own atheist or agnostics beliefs stand in the way of free expression and that is SAD!

Also, I'd point out that when the staff was deciding whether to continue to allow religious discussions (I think it was about a year ago), a few wanted to get rid of the subject of God altogether because of how nasty some of the "believers" (on both sides of the issue) got, and how truly awful some of the logic in debates were.

I think you might be surprised how many of us are open, or more, to the existence of God. It's just that the format here is philosophy, not religion. Argument both for and against the existence of God is a traditional area of philosophy, but it's debated differently than religion. Here one is expected to use evidence, reason, and logic to make points, as well as to avoid relying on religious dogma or faith statements of one's religion in debate. A typical subject might be, do we need God to explain existence, or if God is omnipotent, then . . . (whatever). :smile:
 
Why in the world did you close the thread, Therefore God Exists? Your answer makes no sense. The guy in the thread didn't promote any religion yet you closed his thread and not the others who question God. WHY?

It's sad, when you don't like the thread you close it or take it off the board like you did two of mine. It's like it's ok to mention God in an abstract way to please the feelings of the moderators, but if you discuss God and metaphysics according to your own conscious and it doesn't agree with the moderators they close you down. HYPOCRITES!
 
If you bothered to read Tom's reply to the original poster, you'd find that it was closed because the argument was founded on poor logic, and thus in clear violation of the philosophy forum guidelines. Tom even explicitly stated "Sorry, but this is exactly the type of poorly formulated argument that our Philosophy Forums Guidelines were enacted to prevent. We will host ontological arguments here, but they at least have to be valid."

We are not interested in hosting arguments based on demonstrably poor logic, whether they're about God or apples. And posting something based on "your own conscious" does not necessarily make for a solid logical argument. This has nothing to do with the belief systems of the moderators, and everything to do with the quality of the logic and/or the religious content of the offending material (your previous threads included). If you don't like our guidelines, you can read and post your ideas from your own conscious elsewhere. Case closed.
 
Last edited:
I want to thank those members who interacted with me a couple of years ago in two Optics Forum threads. They were @Drakkith, @hutchphd, @Gleb1964, and @KAHR-Alpha. I had something I wanted the scientific community to know and slipped a new idea in against the rules. Thank you also to @berkeman for suggesting paths to meet with academia. Anyway, I finally got a paper on the same matter as discussed in those forum threads, the fat lens model, got it peer-reviewed, and IJRAP...
About 20 years ago, in my mid-30s (and with a BA in economics and a master's in business), I started taking night classes in physics hoping to eventually earn the science degree I'd always wanted but never pursued. I found physics forums and used it to ask questions I was unable to get answered from my textbooks or class lectures. Unfortunately, work and life got in the way and I never got further the freshman courses. Well, here it is 20 years later. I'm in my mid-50s now, and in a...
Back
Top