No science or critical thinking in Religion or Philosophy forums (?)

D

davewhite04

Valued Senior Member
Moderator note: This thread was split from another thread, in the Religion subforum.
----

DaveC426913 said:
Remember what I said about this being "a science discussion site and that we generally expect that, if you're going make assertions, you back them up with some sort of rational evidence
Click to expand...

This is not a science based discussion site, how many times do I have to tell you this? You don't know what www.sciforums.com is. You also have took your philosophy hat off so your patter is watter.

Philosophy is the study of fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language, employing critical thinking and rigorous analysis to explore these concepts. It's a broad field encompassing various branches like ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, and logic, each delving into specific aspects of human understanding and experience - A.I. Google.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
davewhite04 said:
Philosophy is the study of fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language, employing critical thinking and rigorous analysis to explore these concepts. It's a broad field encompassing various branches like ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, and logic, each delving into specific aspects of human understanding and experience - A.I. Google.
Click to expand...
The word philosophy is, if I remember correctly, from the Greek meaning 'love of wisdom'.
 
davewhite04 said:
This is not a science based discussion site, how many times do I have to tell you this?
Click to expand...
You can express your personal wishes as much as you want, here is what the rules say that we all agreed on, including Opine and you:

"...we retain in all areas of debate an ethos of respect for the scientific method, which demands critical analysis, clear thinking and evidence-based argument..."
 
DaveC426913 said:
You can express your personal wishes as much as you want, here is what the rules say that we all agreed on, including Opine and you:

"...we retain in all areas of debate an ethos of respect for the scientific method, which demands critical analysis, clear thinking and evidence-based argument..."
Click to expand...
Rubbish. Free thoughts require "...we retain in all areas of debate an ethos of respect for the scientific method, which demands critical analysis, clear thinking and evidence-based argument..."

JamesR modify the rules before they become a laughing stock. And Dave, is there no other forums you can pester with your total lack of religious based knowledge?
 
Last edited:
davewhite04 said:
Rubbish. Free thoughts require "...we retain in all areas of debate an ethos of respect for the scientific method, which demands critical analysis, clear thinking and evidence-based argument..."

JamesR modify the rules before they become a laughing stock.
Click to expand...
This is not the DaveWhite forums. Feel free to find a different discussion forum where the rules are more to your liking.

davewhite04 said:
And Dave, is there no other forums you can pester with your total lack of religious based knowledge?
Click to expand...
The only one not posting on-topic is you.

Please post on topic or start a new thread. You are polluting this discussion with your off-topic complaining.
 
DaveC426913 said:
This is not the DaveWhite forums. Feel free to find a different discussion forum where the rules are more to your liking.


The only one not posting on-topic is you.

Please post on topic or start a new thread. You are polluting this discussion with your off-topic complaining.
Click to expand...
You took it off topic with your usual drivel of your Frankenstein arguments trying to fit religion inside your scientific mind where it makes no sense so you project your negative thoughts continuously in the... actually everywhere... why do you not stick to the science forum? You are just not equipped to converse in anything other than science it seems, which is fair enough, but you should admit your knowledge of religion is 0%.
 
DaveC426913 said:
This is not the DaveWhite forums.
Click to expand...

So you think this rule "...we retain in all areas of debate an ethos of respect for the scientific method, which demands critical analysis, clear thinking and evidence-based argument..." should apply to Free Thoughts?
 
Opine said:
Thank you for pointing out my error. What I mean is we can gain hints of the origin of the universe by looking at the way fundamental particles behave. For example, the way that observation (measurement) causes collapse of the wavefunction, allowing them to be generated, much like the universe is generated.

Actually no, I know it for a fact that the universe is not 100% material. Matter is contingent upon non-matter in order to distinguish itself from its absence. Similar to the way existence is contingent upon non-existence for its contrasting of opposites.

I only hope to live up to the standards of the website. That is why I do my best to support my claims.

I only hope to meet the challenge with success. I realise that many people may not agree with me, but I do the best I can to provide logical backing for my claims.

I would suggest you use logic rather than empiricism. As logic is far more reliable in soldifying concepts.
Click to expand...
Opine. Welcome. Just because you mention "God" in your posts it does not mean it is religious. I think your thoughts such as above are ideal for science or the free thoughts forum. Just my thoughts.
 
davewhite04 said:
Just because you mention "God" in your posts it does not mean it is religious.
Click to expand...
This was going to be one of my points too. Which is why i was surprised at your complaint about me not discussing religion, since it isn't. You and I seem to agree after all.
 
Pinball1970 said:
That's because he is one of the good guys. You are one of the three reasonable theist posters, theists who have stated their position that is.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think it's time to ask how many theists vs atheist v agnostic v other... I'll think on it. This forum has had some good times, but we won't get them back if we are hostile to new members, likes of Opine is young enough to learn, so instead of caning him teach him. I know Dave is okay :)
 
davewhite04 said:
Haha stay on topic? Are you joking? 99% of the threads I've seen go off topic.
Click to expand...
Complaints about how threads are run, who gets to participate and how should be taken up in the Feedback Forum or the Open Governnent Forum. Further attempts to gatekeep this thread will be reported.

davewhite04 said:
Dave, most users just go with the flow and it works out.
Click to expand...
Except you.

This is you not going with the flow:

"This is not a science based discussion site, how many times do I have to tell you this? You don't know what www.sciforums.com is. "

"You also have took your philosophy hat off so your patter is watter.

"Dave, is there no other forums you can pester with your total lack of religious based knowledge?"

"You took it off topic with your usual drivel of your Frankenstein arguments trying to fit religion inside your scientific mind where it makes no sense so you project your negative thoughts continuously in the... actually everywhere... why do you not stick to the science forum? You are just not equipped to converse in anything other than science it seems, which is fair enough, but you should admit your knowledge of religion is 0%."


Don't be a hyocrite.


davewhite04 said:
Just a handful of snitches we've got.
Click to expand...
Your take on order versus anarchy is revealing.

It is only the criminally-minded that see the restoration of order as "snitching". It is only the trouble-instigators that disparage the arrival of the police.


davewhite04 said:
~You~ are the bully, with your threatening behaviour.
Click to expand...
See above. The only one bullying is you.

You are ben quite overbearing with your attempts to gatekeep, not only this thread, but the religion forum.


You would do well to review the site rules, particularly these ones which are highly germane to your behaviour:

H3. Bear in mind that the thread is on a public forum and all members are free to contribute to it; you may not place restrictions on who may respond.

H10. Attack the argument, not the person.

I5. A flame war occurs when an online argument becomes hostile, nasty or derisive, in such a way that insulting a party to the discussion takes precedence over discussing the ostensible topic.

Sciforums site rules

Sciforums - Rules, posting guidelines and advice to members (summary) Sciforums is an intelligent community that encourages learning and thoughtful discussion. We expect and welcome contributions that inform as well as stimulate discussion and debate. At its foundation, sciforums focused on...
www.sciforums.com www.sciforums.com



This side bar is done. I will request that it be removed and placed in the Feedback Forum, so that you can continue any hypocrisy and gatekeeping attempts there, if you so desire.

Any further attempts to sidetrack, hijack or gatekeep this thread will be reported.
 
davewhite04 said:
This is not a science based discussion site, how many times do I have to tell you this? You don't know what www.sciforums.com is.
Click to expand...
This is from the introduction to our Site Posting Guidelines:

At its foundation, sciforums focused on discussion of Science. As the forum developed, our interests broadened to include Philosophy and Ethics, Religion, World Events and Politics and other topics. However, we retain in all areas of debate an ethos of respect for the scientific method, which demands critical analysis, clear thinking and evidence-based argument.​

The question of whether sciforums is therefore a "science based discussion site" really comes down to what you might mean by "science based". We explicitly state that we endorse the scientific method as a valuable tool for critical analysis, clear thinking and drawing evidence-based arguments. That does not mean that we exclude or deprecate other methods that support critical analysis, clear thinking and evidence-based arguments.

It would be fair to say that we make some effort, as a forum, to avoid endorsing arguments that lack critical analysis, clear thinking and/or evidentiary support.

We cannot guarantee, of course, that all our members always, individually, have the same high standards that we like to see. You might like to view the introduction to our posting guidelines, therefore, as something akin to a mission statement: an ideal for everybody to strive for, rather than a standard that all our members always rise to in all their posts.

Luckily, we have a lot of members who like to try to help others to understand what it means to thinking clearly and critically about things, as well as to understand why evidence-based arguments are valuable.
 
Last edited:
davewhite04:
davewhite04 said:
JamesR modify the rules before they become a laughing stock.
Click to expand...
Please be specific. Which rules would you like to see modified, and why?

Which rules do you imagine could become a laughing stock? Do you mean among people we would want to retain as members of this forum?
 
davewhite04 said:
You took it off topic with your usual drivel of your Frankenstein arguments trying to fit religion inside your scientific mind where it makes no sense ...
Click to expand...
Are you saying that you think that religion should be exempt from critical thinking and analysis, davewhite04? Put in a special category in which evidence is considered unimportant? That kind of thing?

Our membership, generally speaking, does not appear to me to think that religion is science.

Are you saying that you think that religion and science are in conflict, and that where they conflict that conflict ought to be resolved in favour of religion?

Please explain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top