sciforums religion is that if you do not conform to normal beliefs your thoughts and threads will be bashed and closed before you can help the poor sheep on this pathetic forum.
agree/disagree?
agree/disagree?
sciforums religion
- Thread starter antisipatience
- Start date
I think sciforums is pretty much neutral. Bashing might just be your interpretation of valid criticism. Anyway you haven't started any threads or made any posts at all in the religion forum besides this one, so what's your problem? What's the oh-so radical "help" that you offer?
Things only get bashed when there's very little to no evidence or proof to a non-mainstream belief. Actually I shouldn't say mainstream because many false things become mainstream, heh, it should be more like "the truth as we currently know it".
Even if and when evidence or proof is shown, it comes at too late a time since the topic has been discussed an ungodly number of times that it becomes too tedious and tiresome to seperate the truth from the bullshit. When 99% is all fake bullshit, it's like, why even care anymore? Sure, that 1% may be highly important but blame it on all the other past nutcases to ruin it for ya.
So if it comes to trying to convince someone of a ground-breaking idea, don't even bother opening your mouth about it unless you have a ground-breaking presentation that cannot be disputed. If you leave tons of holes in your presenation, it just makes you look like the other whack-jobs so all that truth you may have gets lost, as much as it may suck to happen. Thankfully though, not just here but in the world in general, there's some skeptics with the patience to deal with all the bullshit to not let those poor-presenters' truthful ideas get lost.
- N
Even if and when evidence or proof is shown, it comes at too late a time since the topic has been discussed an ungodly number of times that it becomes too tedious and tiresome to seperate the truth from the bullshit. When 99% is all fake bullshit, it's like, why even care anymore? Sure, that 1% may be highly important but blame it on all the other past nutcases to ruin it for ya.
So if it comes to trying to convince someone of a ground-breaking idea, don't even bother opening your mouth about it unless you have a ground-breaking presentation that cannot be disputed. If you leave tons of holes in your presenation, it just makes you look like the other whack-jobs so all that truth you may have gets lost, as much as it may suck to happen. Thankfully though, not just here but in the world in general, there's some skeptics with the patience to deal with all the bullshit to not let those poor-presenters' truthful ideas get lost.
- N
antisipatience, remember what I told you.
And remember that people go missing all the time, never heard from again.
And remember that people go missing all the time, never heard from again.
B
buddhafish
Guest
Well he did ask a pretty simple question, so I'll play devil's advocate...
disagree.
disagree.
antisipatience said:
disagre. Something in the back of my mind is telling me that you like to
accept attractive assertions as being true without considering factual
supportive / contradictory evidence.
Persol said:Have any proof of that?
Well, I suppose I could hunt down all this person's threads and test the
hypothesis...
James R said:
Oh wait, oh wait, I want to answer this one (from the thread starter's
point of view). 'Normal Belief' = A belief lacking excessive stupidity.
I disagree that every unorthodox opinion gets bashed in these forums. There are a certain number of people here who are fair and engage in interesting exchanges of ideas and concepts. There are also a great number of people who are really only interested in trying to outsmart and criticize each most recent post by using clever wording and semantics in the "i'm smarter than you" tradition: and often not really saying anything of substance. My advice is to embrace the former and ignore the latter.