Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

What Kind Of Nazis Run This Place?

  1. Apr 13, 2004 #1
    please be advised that any topic dealing with religion that includes discussion of religious sects, current events of religion and especially preaching will be locked or deleted...for you new members, PF has a history of verbal wars instigated due to religion, and this is not the intent of the forums...the basis of these forums is to encourage people to discuss and learn about our scientific world. if you have the need to discuss religion, i suggest you try a forum specifically for that subject. thanks for your cooperation in advance.


    so i make a post stating that WHATEVER scientific force or entity created the universe is "GOD".....this is a pretty generalized statement that i like to call my "UNIFYING THEORY OF GOD"..........how is these people can even claim to be scientists when they refuse to engage discussion and debate but instead automatically dismiss any topic with the word "GOD" in it as 'religious'? When an average of 90% of the human population believes in some form of 'GOD" i would argue that it is wrong to attempt to stifle such debate but of course they will probably lock this thread too.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 13, 2004 #2

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    If you want to argue through the scientific method that there is a God, that'd be fine - however, I'm quite certain you will not be able to provide any scientifically credible evidence to support that assertion. That is the reason the policy is scientifically acceptable.

    This thread should probably be in the general discussion or feedback section.
     
  4. Apr 13, 2004 #3
    The fact that someone wants to avoid religious discussions in a forum like this doesn't make him a nazi. Be careful what you say. On the other hand...this is the best example for the reasons WHY it's like that: Already in real life, and even more on the internet, religious discussions are often lead with a lot of emotions. Believers and Non-believers slam seemingly rational arguments forth and back, with not even the slightest chance to convince anybody of their beliefs (also atheists believe: that there is nothing). What is won if a forum is full of dead-end, stand-by, nonsense threads ("thread" is actually the wrong word, "pile" would be better) and personal offenses?

    And if you are keen on such stuff, the broad world wide web will offer you MANY places to "empty your throat".

    By the way, it would be useful if you told people when you quote someone.

    edit: this was towards anti-christ, of course (russ has overtaken me...)
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2004
  5. Apr 13, 2004 #4

    Kerrie

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    ah yes, another "fresh" member protesting our rule of no religious discussion. ironically with the member name "anti-christ" ! i assure you mr anti, you aren't the first, and probably won't be the last to "put us in our place" regarding our gag rule of religious discussion. :biggrin: to give you some history, here at PF, we had to constantly play mentor referee to those who were given full access at god bashing, thus we did away with it...we have had members preach that we would all go to hell, those who preached we were insane for believing in any "god", so we stopped all discussion on it for good.

    i can see you having a lot more fun in the AOL chat rooms entitled "Born again Christians" honestly...that way you can have real time conversations with those you want to debate the reality of "god" with...here you won't get that, but with your continued negative attitude you might earn the wonderful reward of "Cracker" :tongue:

    for now, this gets punted like a football to feedback

    ::punt:: :eek:
     
  6. Apr 13, 2004 #5
    The fact of the matter is that through our 4 years of experience running this community we've found it runs more productive to leave out non-scientific based religious discussion. End of story, thanks for your feedback
    :smile:
     
  7. Apr 13, 2004 #6

    Janitor

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I am new enough here that I have not experienced too much of the sort of debate being referenced. I guess I found this website too late! I may have to dig back through old threads to see what went down.
     
  8. Apr 13, 2004 #7
    non-scientific based religious discussion

    I AM A SCIENTIST AND MY POINT IS ENTIRELY BASED ON SCIENCE....

    now maybe if u paid attention and didn't automatically ASSUME i am some religious fanatic u would realize it? all i have said is that WHATEVER force created the universe, multiverse, i.e. everything in existence that force is "GOD"....we know we exist bc we can taste, touch, feel, hear, and see and so everytime we sense something with one of our 5 known senses that proves the existence of the 'GOD' i speak of....it is a very SIMPLE concept so don't try to overanalyze it..........anyway this is what i call my UNIFYING THEORY OF GOD.........the purpose is to find a common ground for all people to agree on....if u don't trust your own 5 senses then u r schizophrenic and should go see a shrink....if u do trust your own 5 senses then u agree with me whether u admit it or not....this is what i call REALITIANITY which is merely a belief in REALITY as proven SCIENTIFICALLY with one's own 5 senses...
     
  9. Apr 13, 2004 #8
    First lesson of pilot school, "don't trust your senses", they can be easily deceived.
    :wink:

    Are you actually trying to make this topic into your religious persuasive argument? Lets get back on topic to whether topics of religion should be accepted in PF otherwise I will lock it.
     
  10. Apr 13, 2004 #9
    and shiczoforenzics are also god's beings or do you exclude them out of under your unification umbrella?
     
  11. Apr 13, 2004 #10
    topic to whether topics of religion should be accepted in PF otherwise I will lock it.

    well one might call my concept of REALITIANITY a 'religion' but i call it SCIENCE....possibily the most important scientific endeavour of all time...using science to end wars....what could be a greater idea?
     
  12. Apr 13, 2004 #11

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    If it's 'science', then by definition it will follow the scientific method ... presumably then you have proposals and assertions, from which follow predictions (that anyone can derive from your ideas), which can be tested (by anyone) through experiment and observation.

    Without seeing your proposals, if the 'prediction' is a political program to 'end wars', I would guess it involves what we call 'economics' (at least).
     
  13. Apr 13, 2004 #12
    presumably then you have proposals and assertions, from which follow predictions (that anyone can derive from your ideas), which can be tested (by anyone) through experiment and observation


    i propose that "GOD" is whatever created everything in existence i.e. REALITY and that anyone who wants to can use their own 5 senses to detect REALITY
     
  14. Apr 13, 2004 #13

    Integral

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This does not answer a single question, it offers no explanation. It is simply another way of saying "I don't know"

    The object of Physics is to explore how the universe functions by observation and careful application of basic principles. To say god did it, is simply not a meaningful answer.

    What you BELIEVE about the creation of the universe is immaterial. The mission of this site is to discuss what has been learned via the scientific method, not to argue belief systems.

    Perhaps some day, using the scientific method, we will discover gods signature in the source code of the universe, until then we cannot simply assume it exists and quit looking.
     
  15. Apr 13, 2004 #14

    Kerrie

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    i sense some pent up frustration here...i still think you would have more fun debating with christians in the AOL chat room :tongue:

    perhaps you didn't pay attention when i stated :
    " those who preached we were insane for believing in any "god", "

    we stopped religious discussion because those from one end of the spectrum to the other tended to insult and whine on about god or no god. as Greg stated, end of discussion.
     
  16. Apr 13, 2004 #15

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I propose that we end wars by walking into draft offices, singing a bar of "Alice's Restaurant", and walking out again. :biggrin:

    It's not science though. :frown:
     
  17. Apr 13, 2004 #16

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    anti-christ, I am a member here, I am not an administrator, mentor or advisor. I have to agree with the forum's decision to close religious discussions. Any approach to religion, whether it is scientific or spiritual quickly degrades into a non-productive battle of who's right and who's wrong and often turns nasty.

    If you wish to discuss your scientific approach to religion or creation, there are many places on the internet for that type of discussion. You may have some great ideas, but that doesn't make it appropriate for this forum.

    I come here because I personally think it is the best forum of it's kind on the internet. There are a lot of great, friendly, helpful people here.

    Try to remember with the size of the membership and the volume of posts here, rules are necessary in order to maintain integrity.

    P.S. A bit of advice - your posts would be clearer and make more sense if when you are referencing something previously posted, you would show it as a quote. This separates it from "your" response. You can use the "quote" button on the bottom right of the post you are referring to.
     
  18. Apr 13, 2004 #17

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Bait and switch?

    If you had a specific, testable proposal for "whatever created everything in existence" (whatever that might mean) then perhaps that may be a suitable topic for discussion on a physics forum. Why hide it behind the label "God"? Sounds like nothing more than semantic sleight of hand.
     
  19. Apr 13, 2004 #18

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Not to brag, but every now and then, I like to quote myself:
    The words "scientifically credible" were emphasized for a reason - and have now been re-emphasized by several other mentors.

    Science is like baseball. It has a certain set of rules. If you try to punt or throw a touchdown pass, you're not playing baseball. And it isn't up to the players to decide what is and isn't acceptable, its up to the umpires and governing comission.

    Similarly, science has a set of rules (the scientific method). These are what lay out what is and isn't science. In this forum, the people who decide whether an idea adheres to this (and thus, if the subject belongs here or not) are the mentors.

    Say your argument is scientific as many times as you want: we disagree and we can assure you the vast majority of scientists would similarly disagree. You're not following the rules of the game.
     
  20. Apr 13, 2004 #19
    It's confusing. The new person may be confused.

    Some of the threads have quite a bit of religious chit-chat allowed, as long as it isn't the main thrust of the discussion...

    Some get the ol' lock slammed on...

    Some would say some of the folks here have made quite a formal religion out of science and the present-day scientific method.

    Some would say some people are pretty darned pushy about stuffing their beliefs down others' throats by force...both religious and non-religious try the ol' force-feeding routine, which probably converts all believers into non-believers and non-believers into believers, just out of disgust...

    Some call upon the "scientific method" with as much fervor as a worshipper calling upon scripture...and confuse the rules of a little forum with much greater and broader rules.

    Some claim a theory or proposal does not qualify for consideration as a "scientific" theory...without actually reading about the theory...

    Some forget that majority, in science, should never rule. Many scientists have suffered and science has suffered because of an inflexibility in thought about what science is and how it should be conducted.

    Some are grinding an ax where it needn't be ground...not to get a lock thrown on me, but in my Good Book, it says there is a time and a season to everything...and religion on PF, pure religion, religion as the topic and not as an aside, is not the time, the place, the season.

    And some folks are just plain unreasonable-acting, on both sides of this fence. Which is why the baby got thrown out with the bathwater, religion-wise. It had to turn out like that...as a Jesus Freak, I've been pretty much left alone, so you have to get pretty extreme to get The Lock, I think...

    I wish people would mellow a bit...be a little kinder to the denizens of this board...don't go calling folks Nazis, and don't go wishing AOL on people...man, there are some mean streets out there, been on 'em, can't we play nice here? There are some people here saved my neck, saved my dream of being a sonographer...this is a place, a little home, a little niche, for quite a few wounded souls, I think...c'mon, let's keep it smooth, keep a good thought for each other, don't take it bad when you get The Lock, play by the folks' rules...g'night...two people died on my shift today...it's a quick trip through this ol' world, wishing you all the best. This is way too long.
     
  21. Apr 13, 2004 #20

    Rut Roh

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yea. All that stuff Holly said.

    Bloomin' DITTO right. '

    Good job, Holly. I couldn't figure out exactly how to express it (edit: my feelings on this thread). I'm glad you did.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: What Kind Of Nazis Run This Place?
  1. A new kind of ad? (Replies: 4)

Loading...