Should we move to ban believers?
- Thread starter universaldistress
- Start date
I tend to identify with agnostic atheism, and also with scientific realism. It's all kinds of fun trying to pigeonhole yourself. There are just so many wonderful categories to explore.
I think at one stage sci did try an atheism sub forum but it didn't float because they had nothing to say
I think at one stage sci did try an atheism sub forum but it didn't float because they had nothing to say
It figures.
jan
*************
M*W: Better. It would save on the redundancy of having to go back to square one.
Banning theists for being theists runs in direct contradiction to the scientific method, and this being intended as a science board, the discussions would be immeasurably worsened as a result. Why ban a method of inquiry rather than discussing it and exposing its shortcomings? Why would an atheist want to close themselves off to a line of thought, as if they had something to hide?
The problem is with trolling, personal attacks, hate propaganda, that's what ruins the conversation and shouldn't be tolerated here.
Yes but are theists analysing in a scientific manner. Are theists producing convincing evidence to back up there claims. This isn't intended in any hateful way, just an arena for theists to give a good account of themselves within a scientific context.
Of course, but only if, before or after that, we move to ban and the unbelievers.
Given that atheism is a single position (lack of belief) with regard a single concept (God), why would you expect there to be anything to say specifically within an Atheism forum?I think at one stage sci did try an atheism sub forum but it didn't float because they had nothing to say
Unsurprisingly, when atheists discuss Biology, they do so in the Biology sub-forum.
Likewise when they discuss Maths, they do so in that sub-forum.
Therefore it should come as no surprise, even to you, that when they discuss matters of Religion they would do so in the Religion forum.
Nicely cut through the chaff.
On the second count I would say no, the theists are definitely not coming up with convincing evidence. If theists had convincing scientific arguments for their beliefs, then they would have the ability to notice patterns and correlations in nature which atheists are incapable of seeing, and their consequent ability to accurately predict and manipulate things would be in overwhelming and abundant display.
As to the first question, I think a distinction should be made between "hard" theists and "soft" theists. It seems to me a majority or near-majority of westerners are soft theists, i.e. they have religious beliefs and intuitions about the world, but they're open to the possibility that they might be wrong. If it's not a scientific attitude, at least soft theism doesn't seem to conflict with science.
Even if a theist is here making unscientific arguments, there's still value in the discussion, because it provides an opportunity to point out specifically what portions of their arguments are in conflict with the scientific method. As I say, trolling and personal attacks are the real problems. If someone is just here to preach and will consistently dismiss others without addressing the substance of their arguments, it falls into the category of trolling. Nothing wrong with theists coming here, having their say, atheists delivering their rebuttals, theists delivering their counter-rebuttals, and once everyone's run out of interest or new points to make, moving on to a new topic.
How atheists have arrived at atheism; how atheism is justified; how atheism is superior to theism.
And why it is called "atheism".
Yes but do you not believe that ultimately a scientific approach holds all the cards? (ok, within philosophy there is room for argument). And that maybe we are all wasting our time here? What is the goal? To better understand each other, shoot each other down (seems the main objective). is it worth the effort?
Precisely.
What can an antithesis say in the absence of its diametrically oppose thesis?
Nothing.
Same with theists.
Or lesbians.
Or nazis.
Or pedophiles.
Whats your point?
i have no problem with any person who believes in a religion and say it's their faith. that's personal. you can't really have a problem with someone who has a certain faith in something or have their organizations. that is their right. that doesn't mean everyone is going to like them either or have a positive opinion about their religion or beliefs just like they don't have a positive opinion of other religions or whatever.
the ones who try to prove their god is real for everyone else too etc are asking for arguments. so what can you do?
the ones who try to prove their god is real for everyone else too etc are asking for arguments. so what can you do?
In the past we tried a religion forum and an atheist forum. The atheist forum attracted almost no attention or posts so we deleted it.
Kinda makes sense since atheism is dependent on theism, and without our theist friends we would have nothing to fight against.
So definitely no banning of our wonderful believers who make life so enjoyable for us.
That is interesting...and funny. Atheist find a purpose in theism, or so it would seem.
Last edited:
It would be like banning readers from a book club. What would be the point?
well. i seem to remember some threads that you started soliciting information and opinions from these same people.
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
well. i seem to remember some threads that you started soliciting information and opinions from these same people.
No. You should remember one thing... I have a problem with those who try to prove everyone else wrong and themselves right when there is not credible evidence to fully prove or disprove others. Again, it's a waste of time. So let me clarify, I don't support banning believers. You can believe whatever the hell you want whether it's God or the Flying Speghetti Monster. I really don't care. But when you come onto the forum and try to say that you can scientifically prove that your God is real (or others false), then you should be banned.
EDIT: And not once, in my entire history on this forum have I ever said that I know for a fact that God is either existant or non-existant. If believers cannot distinguish reality from mentality, then they have no place here. That is my whole point. If they are unwilling to even acknowledge the possibility, regardless of thier beliefs, that what they believe is not fact and may very well be incorrect, then there is no logical and intellectual debate that can be held regarding religion. They will forever think inside of their own little boxes.
And lastly, I have never supported Christianity, Islam or Judaism. I do believe in everyones individual right to believe whatever the hell they want, but that doesn't mean I believe it as well. Feel free to search through my post history if you life. The few beliefs that I do relate to and/or can understand, that I have expressed on this site, is Atheism, Agnosticism, Deism and Buddhism. I have never agreed with the monotheistic religions of Abraham.
Last edited: