ICAL: Bias Authority on Philosphy Forum

[RAD4921]

I think a lot of the people who are "members" and have authority to lock and move threads can be very very bias and using their powers to amplify there own beliefs. I ran into this problem when I posted a thread on "Eisten and God" in general discussion forum. It is no doubt that "PF Mentor' is an ardent atheist who uses his authority to push his own beliefs on others in the forum. The idea that Einstein at one point even uses the word "God" several times and then later calls himself "agnostic" shows great contradiction. I was not allowed to speak this because the thread was locked and now I have to convey my message here. I don't see the big deal talking about religion in the philosophy forums, after all religion is a major part of philosophy. This forum is greatly restictive and obstructs the projection of ideas and learning. I am more of a philosopher than a scientist and I am going to make "philosophyforum.com" my new home. SOME of the people who run this forum digust me. I wouldn't doubt it if this thread gets removed. Talk about censorship. What is next for you guys, burning books? RAD

 

[Pengwuino]

I have this strange idea that you have no idea who the mods are and what they believe in since you didn't even know the particular mod that closed your thread was not a 'he' in the first place.

 

[Lisa!]

REligion discussions aren't welcome in PF! That's the whole point and I guess that's what anyone of us accept when we wanted to register! However sometimes I don't like it when a mentor comment on a post and then lock the thread, although I appreciate it that they just want to correct the poster 's mistakes for the sake of people who might mislead by the content of that post.

 

[scott1]

I don't think Evo is an Athesit.

Evo didn't delete your post so you should be happy. She probally didn't want there to be a bad religous disscussion you should PM her instead if your unhappy with the guidlines.

 

[Lisa!]

Even if she's an atheist, I find her openminded enough to let people speak their mind ! But breaking PF rules is another story...

 

[Pengwuino]

And as has been said already... you did agree to not posting religious discussions.. correct? You did read the guidelines you accepted right?

 

[scott1]

And as has been said already... you did agree to not posting religious discussions.. correct? You did read the guidelines you accepted right?

This is what I don't get him people come here and start some stupid complaint about there thread getting locked. If you agree to the guidlines then you have no reason to complain.
It looks like RAD4921 logged off for good...

 

[Evo]

I locked it based on it being a religious discussion.

 

[Pengwuino]

This is what I don't get him people come here and start some stupid complaint about there thread getting locked. If you agree to the guidlines then you have no reason to complain.
It looks like RAD4921 logged off for good...

Just reinforces my views that people really don't care about the rules but still want to complain whenever possible.

 

[Garth]

I locked it based on it being a religious discussion.

Evo, could you not have moved it to an appropiate Forum such as General Philosphy? Is was a discussion about a famous scientist's views, and not personal polemic.

I was about to correct your statement

Unfortunately it's not an accurate portrayal. Einstein considered himself an agnostic

Obviously you did not read the OP link properly, which said

Early in his life Einstein came to refer to God as "cosmic intelligence" which he did not think of in a personal but in a "super-personal" way, for, as he learned from Spinoza, the term "personal" when applied to human beings cannot as such be applied to God

That is entirely consistent with your quote:

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.

The point being was that Einstein believed in a concept 'God', but his was not a concept of a personal God.

People model the concept 'God' in different ways, Einstein's very valid model, or understanding, of the concept 'God' did not make him agnostic or atheist.

Garth

 

[Evo]

Evo, could you not have moved it to an appropiate Forum such as General Philosphy? Is was a discussion about a famous scientist's views, and not personal polemic.

I was about to correct your statement Obviously you did not read the OP link properly, which said
That is entirely consistent with your quote:

The point being was that Einstein believed in a concept 'God', but his was not a concept of a personal God.

People model the concept 'God' in different ways, Einstein's very valid model, or understanding, of the concept 'God' did not make him agnostic or atheist.

Garth

Did you read that entire document? It kept making suppositions (incorrectly) that Einsten was highly religious. It misinterpreted a lot of what Einstein said and then tried to support their conclusion about Einstein's fervent belief in God based on the authors personal opinions.

It is full of totally unsupported suppositions by the author.

"In view of this interview it is understandable that Einstein is reported to have said that Christ Jesus was the greatest of all Jews."

"What a startling light that throws upon what Einstein himself really meant by "God"! It is only from God that we can understand the why or the fundamental purpose of the created universe."

"God is faithful, and does not let us down; he is always trustworthy."

"That is why Einstein could not be an atheist, if only because apart from God the transcendent ground of all order, there could be no rational thought, let alone any science."

"Yet it is only from God who does not play dice, who does not wear his heart on his sleeve, and who is deep but not devious, that we may be given an understanding of the ultimate reason for the created universe, and of his redemptive purpose for a world that has gone astray."

This isn't philosophy, it's a religious sermon.

 

[loseyourname]

Pantheism is certainly up for discussion, so long as it isn't tied to any specific dogmatic doctrine (I don't think any religion other than maybe Jainism is pantheistic, so it is likely no dogma will be involved). In general, the guideline is such that rational theology is acceptable for discussion, revealed theology is not. For whatever reason, however, threads started with a rational intent almost always get derailed by injections of revealed doctrine. Either way, there are better sources to be citing to start a discussion than Einstein. As great a thinker as he was, he made no dent whatsoever in the philosophy of religion or in theology.

Also, the philosophy forums are just as restrictive, albeit about different things.

 

[Moonbear]

RAD, I suggest you re-read our forum guidelines again, very carefully, and especially note the part about the restrictions on religious discussions.

Beyond that, all matters concerning reasons for moderation should be discussed via private message with the moderator.

Do not use feedback as a means of circumventing locked discussions. The discussion will NOT be continued here.