If you could change one thing about sciforums...

Wow Signal. You're not supposed to let emotion get in the way when talking on this subject. It is against forum rules.

How does one prove that god exists?

They cannot. So if Sciforums wants to run religious discussions then none of them will be able to "converse" as long as people keep yelling "There is no god" every other post.

I myself find it interesting at how much every religion has in common, and would like to find the root of that. I am guessing it just evolved that way.
i.e.
a) Every religion has prayer
b) Every religion says to have faith
c) Every religion says do unto others as you'd have done to you ( not all in those words), and I am not going to say many of them here. I'll say one, "Buddhism, Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful."
d) Every religion says to ask for things from god.

* When I say every religion I am speaking of mainstream religions. There are backyard satanists, etc. I do not recognize the minor groups here.

Anyways.. Let's say for argument I started off comparing religions.

The first post would be like this.

The second post would be like this,

I am not sure Dywy uses the term wingnut. But the idea I am conferring is valid.

Sciforums is not for intelligent conversation unless you want help with your math homework. Nobody can "pretend" that religion is true for the sake of discussion.

For the record I have no religious affiliation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Whatever you say

Uh-huh.

Here, at Sciforums.

The place where a horde of self-superior atheists can't write even a half-witted thesis about religion.

Whatever you say, Signal.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I can only repeat myself:


Theists want to be taken seriously, don't they?

So we should take them seriously.

If theism is supposedly more than "just another theory," then it should be treated as such.


Many theists feel safe to ridicule non-theists and even declare eternal damnation to them.

Let's see how the theists will fare once they are taken seriously, and are not allowed anymore to get away with murder.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have one.
Don't know if it is at all possible with the forum software we're using, but it would be a nice feature if we could ban people from threads and/or subforums rather than from the entire website.

 

I also agree with Enmos above.


@ signal,

It is not just religion Signal, but that was a good example. The same thing happens in pseudoscience and parapsychology, and a few other places.

James R. has been looking at a way to make this forum grow. It obviously is quite small in comparison to some of the other forums I use. The problem seems to be a lot of hard-core authorities on here that make sure every comment must have proof provided in triplicate.

I have been involved in psychic research. If I came on here and said, In my double blind mouse test last week we had a 73% success rate sending directions to the mouse.

then the next comment would be.

Impossible or crank or provide documentation.
(Like we want to provide documentation from our entire experiment only to have them ridicule our findings as garbage.)

So... Sciforums is doomed to be a smaller crowd. Maybe the moderation on the other sites is set up differently? I have no idea.

Any ideas that can help James R. here?

 

No.

Theism has a unique position.
Theism is, at least nominally, about The Absolute Truth, about the Creator, Maintainer and Controller of everyone and everything.


I want theism to be taken seriously.

First and foremost by the theists themselves.

 

@ Signal,

Then one could easily point out that perhaps god is not an elusive entity. If mass consciousness/Universal mind ideas proved correct then it would only be a small step to assume god is a combination of us all plus maybe a little bit more.

To prove something like that; (if possible) would be a quantum mechanics puzzle, and more likely moved from the physics forum into the pseudoscience forum by the moderators, or put straight into pseudoscience by its author.

I have to say. I believe I have seen enough proof of telepathy to shock most people. I know what it sounds like to an observer, but from my stance I could never doubt its validity. So without anybody pointing to the contrary, I have to consider any wildcat theories that come along because there is a lack of well thought out scientific explanations.

I'm sure you could probably find a few posts trying to find god through quantum mechanics on here already.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=110111&highlight=quantum
Here is one person looking for god scientifically, but aside from the starting post, the rest of the people are like you and squashed the concept. No discussion, just squishing. I think Dywy's only purpose on Sciforums is to argue against metaphysics.
So.

YES! (not no)

Sounds like you were raised in a bible belt. lol

Your way of thinking will continue to hurt Sciforums. If people in all of the other off science topics get jumped on by members and moderators they just go to the larger forums.

 

And yet...

Is this thread really meant as an opportunity for kw to to continue his childish vendetta? It's bad enough when he resurrects old threads to "score points" against me.

Just a question.

 

@ Dywy,

I was linking a thread about a "scientific explanation of god". Your name came up because you were the main "squisher in that argument/discussion/argument. Look at the page I linked. The guy just wanted to see if there were any scientific reasons to expect a god, and you jumped on him like an alley cat.

It is true I do not like people who hang around pseudoscience just to be argumentative. The link was meant to demonstrate that god conversation could be a pseudoscience thing and not religion to Signal. You are a major disturbance in those types of "discussions" from my point of view anyways. Read the link yourself and you can "feel how you helped".

However to be fair, you were soon joined in the religion bashing by many other members, but you were the most active bully/troll. Why do you even go in that forum, except to disrupt.

Here is the link again. If you wish to see yourself as the "hero" who saved us all from religion. Some of us view that kind of bullying arguments as trolling.

Here is the link AGAIN.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=110111&highlight=quantum

It is my understanding that this thread is so James R can improve sciforums. I am trying to emphasize the amount of bullying that takes place, and how it scares people off. I also am trying to show that bullying is NOT ALWAYS called for.

 

And the reason for the first post using my name would be...?
The reason for stalking me would be...?

 

@ Dywy,
Get over yourself. I said your name came up from that thread. I honestly found that thread by typing in "Quantum God" as my search term. That seemed to be the most likely thread based on its title. It is not my fault you are such a busy "basher". It says you have 14000 posts, and I am guessing 95% are "policing religion and pseudoscience".

If you look at the position I was trying to convey to signal in post # 67; you can see why I searched "quantum god". It had nothing to do with you, although your name was more on my tongue than signals after reading the thread I linked.

stalker (name calling. really)? Paranoid much?
I have been active in a myriad of topics, and there is more than 1 person in this thread alone I see frequently. Maybe I am stalking Me-Ki-Gal, but I often find what she says funny.

For the record I was also in this thread before you. If I was stalking you, I'd assume you would need to be here first. I do mention names of people if I am referring to them. I have been discussing people who "police pseudoscience" much in this thread and in post number # 4; I had mentioned Crunchycat. If I mentioned you as a "policer" then I was just being accurate. I also told JAMES R that I seem to recall him "correcting" things in pseudoscience, and called him a "policer" in post #4; but not in so many words.. I am sure he was not overly offended by this comment. Many who do "police" the pseudoscience feel justified. They are not breaking rules.

I just clicked randomly on about 10 recent pseudoscience posts. I found Dywy name very frequently in post #2. I also noticed James R mentioning that ghosts existences defy scientific laws. Of course they do, their ghosts. I believe I made my points very well, and was not singling anyone out. In this thread I have mentioned some names. Reiku,crunchycat, James R (who started the thread and could ban me for life), dywy, and signal. The only person that got upset about it was dywy, yet I think I made a good position stance.

I also spoke up for Reiku, although I have seen Reiku start threads about James R and know there must be bad blood, but I was only stating opinion from a "crank stance". I was not trying to offend anyone.

I do tend to write lengthy posts and try to explain my positions. This website could do with less "policing" IN MY HUMBLE OPINION. Is what I tried to convey. Sorry if your feelings got hurt.

OMG

 

You are an anti-theist.

You apparently do not want theism to be taken seriously.

 

People get scared off??

If one is convinced one knows the truth, nothing can scare one off.

If one doesn't know the truth - then one should rethink one's position to begin with.

 

about what?

 

Their theism.

 

and what exactly is "theism"?

 

@ Signal
To go off topic for response: I think I was Atheist, but now my beliefs seem to encompass some sort of universal matrix like conscious. (Egad! I'm gonna get roasted for this.)

So I do believe that there is a Universal mind/God. So I am a Theist now I guess, but I do not agree with any religions I have ever heard of.

I would like to see discussions be discussions. Conversation over dismissals. I do not know how James R could improve upon that. Maybe it is not possible here. Some of those larger forum websites do have a larger number of topics as well, and not alwasy science based. Maybe we are limited because of the Science theme. I think with creative rules and mods who encourage conversation over bullying would bring more members.

When brainstorming there is no such thing as a bad idea. Every idea out of someones mouth should be written down even if stupid. Forums could be the same way. Even if an idea is "stupid" does not mean it cannot give someone else clever ideas.

Some scientists dream weird dreams, "I saw a snake curve around a pole and knew it was a metaphor" for my project. I solved my problem."

Maybe a weird idea might trigger inventiveness in someone. I like to see science invent.

@ signal,
I have not posted in Pseudoscience for a long while because I was "scared off" I could tell you the forum I use for that, but choose not to in a sciforum post. I bet we can look back at posters in pseudoscience and see that many have "vanished".

 

Belief in God and related practices.

 

Theism is not about brainstorming.
It is about the Absolute Truth.
Theists claim to possess definitive answers about God and us.
From the theists' perspective, there is nothing to discover. It is all only a matter of who will subject themselves to what/whom.

The truth cannot be scared off.

 

science is neutral on the concept of god.
for you to want theists to disclose their personal information like locations is beyond ridiculous.

and what practices are those?
good will towards mankind perhaps?