Captain Kremmen said:I wonder what happened to good old Spud Emperor?
He was a great pal of mine.
I see science as currently our best human attempt to understand the universe around us. I think that most of what science tells us is substantially true. But that doesn't mean that science is complete. Nor does it mean that everything that science says today will still be accepted by science in 500 years. In the future we are inevitably going to know a lot more, and perhaps a few of the cherished theories of today will have been dramatically revised in much the way that Aristotelian mechanics was replaced by Galilean. I think that's almost inevitable.
Others around here seem to have set themselves up as Sciforums' grand-inquisitors, rooting out heresy wherever they find it, flaming the sinners responsible and doing all they can to defend the scientistic catechism. Reality is whatever scientific orthodoxy currently pictures it as being and that most emphatically is that.
1. Add a user fiction subforum.
2. Fix the new posts list. It cuts out too early and complicates how I binge read. A solution would be to emulate most other forums and expand it.
As for Camus preferring to believe in god (and did you even understand what he's said there?) - he can do whatever he wants. Well, could, past tense... he's a bit too dead to bother with the question now.The Marquis, are you perhaps referring to Albert Camus?
From what I understand of Albert Camus, he evidently could sit down and read that other tripe, I.E. :
- the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_camus.html
However, owing to your own admission, quoted below, I see no good reason to engage in any further discourse with you.
What is that? A warning, or is it just you buggering off now you've had your last say, pretending you've won a medal?Hence, this is it.
"I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live as if there isn't and to die to find out that there is."—Albert Camus
- the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_camus.html
Originally Posted by Albert Camus
I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live as if there isn't and to die to find out that there is.
What is that? A warning, or is it just you buggering off now you've had your last say, pretending you've won a medal?
Very well. Skedaddle.
Quote Originally Posted by James R
We need many more members to come in and post a whole lot of content...
Interesting content drives discussion...
Where was that originally posted by James R?
Where is the original source for that quote, does anyone know?
Interesting.
If only the most prolific Posters on SciForums could see fit to actually Practice what they profusely Preach then they would be contributing to "Makin Sciforums more Successful.!!!"
CK, I mean precisely what I Posted : Certain Posters who average 10 or 15 Posts Per Day in some cases, make more "Peyton Place' type Posts than Posts about Science.What do you mean by that?If only the most prolific Posters on SciForums could see fit to actually Practice what they profusely Preach then they would be contributing to "Makin Sciforums more Successful.!!!"
CK, I cannot concur with your ^^above quoted^^ remarks, nor can I supply an answer to your 'why'.If it is that there seems to be a different set of rules for one set of posters. The Mods.
To another set of posters. The Bods. (The rest of us)
I agree.
What if the Bods could moderate the Mods, as well as vice versa?
Reverse their decisions. Ban them from moderating for a period.
Like some kind of democracy.
Would that make sense?
All forums seem to be fascistic in structure.
Even ones like this, whose ethos is liberal.
Why is that?
CK, I mean precisely what I Posted : Certain Posters who average 10 or 15 Posts Per Day in some cases, make more "Peyton Place' type Posts than Posts about Science.
Those Posters 'Talk' of established Scientific Methods, Proper Peer Review, Respect for for others viewpoints and Tolerance...hence they profusely Preach a good line.
However, those same Posters 'Walk' a path strewn with 'assumpions', 'presumptions', 'biases', 'prejudices' and an all consuming compulsion to malign and denigrate other Members with "ad hominem" attacks - not unlike "Soap Operas" or the current crop of "Reality Television Shows"...hence they in no way actually Practice in reality what they profusely Preach and 'Demand' of the other Members of SciForums.
No, it wouldn't make sense... as has been shown repeatedly, there will always be a small group of rabble-rousers who are never happy with the moderators decisions and, if they had that sort of power, would actively overturn every moderator decision just to spite them.
krash, he is right though - if you make a claim, you have to provide some evidence to back it - telling someone to go find it isn't acceptable.
At least, that used to be the forum policy... whether that still is or not seems to be debatable...