Suggested new forum--SEX
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
0-10 years 0.73%
11-20 years 43.07%
21-30 years 31.39%
31-40 years 12.41%
41-50 years 8.76%
51+ years 3.65%
I don't know your age, but it seems to me that the majority of people are 30 or younger.
No sex forum is needed, all humorous stuff goes in the Free Thoughts forum.
Young people can make a very intelligent discussion, you just need to take time to notice them.
Originally posted by Cris
I haven't noticed one immature "kid" yet. And please, don't bother pointing out my post in Free Thoughts.
Science and religion go hand in hand, conflicting at many points. Someone would still cite religion in an All Science board, so there is no hard in having it. If it is truly of dier concern to conserve bandwith, the first forum to go is usually the one that eats up the most bandwith, which is probably Free Thoughts. There are many Free Thoughts type boards throughout the net, so nothing would be lost. NOTE: I'm not advocating the destruction of Free Thoughts, but if any forum should go, that should go first.
11-20 years 43.07%
21-30 years 31.39%
31-40 years 12.41%
41-50 years 8.76%
51+ years 3.65%
I don't know your age, but it seems to me that the majority of people are 30 or younger.
No sex forum is needed, all humorous stuff goes in the Free Thoughts forum.
Young people can make a very intelligent discussion, you just need to take time to notice them.
Originally posted by Cris
I haven't noticed one immature "kid" yet. And please, don't bother pointing out my post in Free Thoughts.
Science and religion go hand in hand, conflicting at many points. Someone would still cite religion in an All Science board, so there is no hard in having it. If it is truly of dier concern to conserve bandwith, the first forum to go is usually the one that eats up the most bandwith, which is probably Free Thoughts. There are many Free Thoughts type boards throughout the net, so nothing would be lost. NOTE: I'm not advocating the destruction of Free Thoughts, but if any forum should go, that should go first.
Counsler Coffee (while I'm at it)
I'm sure many people didn't think highly of you afterthis reply.
If that was a joke, you did a bad job of showing it.
I'm sure many people didn't think highly of you afterthis reply.
If that was a joke, you did a bad job of showing it.
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
If that was a joke, you did a bad job of showing it.
YoungWriter, then you didnt read my post all the way through. I said that it was joke. I was making fun of Jerry Farwell. Any person who watches the news would of picked up on that.
YoungWriter, then you didnt read my post all the way through. I said that it was joke. I was making fun of Jerry Farwell. Any person who watches the news would of picked up on that.
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
I went back and added in bold marks, for youngwriter, to see where I point out that Im joking. Im highly sarcastic by nature... I think most of us can say that for ourselves. If you dont know what Im talking about then click here
It was all a joke about Falwell. Oh and if your a Rosie fan I really dont like her.
Oh and youngwriter, I never made a thread like this: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?postid=190061#post190061
Oh wait... your the one who made that thread, sorry.
Ive never had one of my threads closed... especially for OBVIOUS reasons.
*EDIT* I threw this into my "Homosexual Survey" Post to. Just to let everyone know that coffee was joking.
It was all a joke about Falwell. Oh and if your a Rosie fan I really dont like her.
Oh and youngwriter, I never made a thread like this: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?postid=190061#post190061
Oh wait... your the one who made that thread, sorry.
Ive never had one of my threads closed... especially for OBVIOUS reasons.
*EDIT* I threw this into my "Homosexual Survey" Post to. Just to let everyone know that coffee was joking.
Last edited:
That thread was all in good fun.
But I bow to your correction
No wonder that sounded familiar.
But I bow to your correction
No wonder that sounded familiar.
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
Your apology is accepted. Im still not for a sex forum though.
Cris
Closure of Religion forum?
I'm positive, Cris, that you remember the days when the front page of Exosci was a news clipper.
The religion forum rises out of necessity from that phase. Without it, certain archaeological or anthropological evidence have no place to be debated here. It's well enough to debate techniques discoveries, but if you can't explore the impact of those scientific events, what's the point?
Respecting your proposition, we should also drop World Affairs, Ethics Morality & Justice, Free Thoughts, and Art & Culture.
At which point I look forward to seeing how many people bother posting.
In the end, the Religion forum, at least, is necessary because it's always been a vital part of Exosci/Sciforums.
That neither theists or atheists alike have, in general, used the topic for such a regard for religion is their own choice. I mean, think of it this way: Here we have a topic with some scientific potential, as Adam has pointed out, as well as a topic which proposes a method for examining religious texts according to modern and scientific principles, and it's important enough for a poster to come out and contribute nothing of value to the topic. I'm happy to explore Adam's proposed mirror neurons, but I'm more than a little disturbed, as one might be able to tell, at Godless' entry to the topic. I'll get back to Adam's point when I finish my reading, but such posts as his are a minority in the Religion forum. It's all what's important to people.
If the Religion forum isn't that important to someone, why should they bother reading or posting in it? What is the direct antagonism that compels people to muck up topics with worthless distractions? It seems convenient in the specific sense that for all the poor atheistic performance at the Religion board, I find it odd that you, Cris, an atheist, are asking for the removal of that board. Address the members of your common identity.
On a personal level, Cris: you and I often expect certain shortcomings of certain paradigms. It is, in part, one of the reasons why you're an atheist. The perception of a pattern and expectation of the same is fair. In other words, I expect the Sir Loone's and Musclewhatsits and other shouting babble from religious folk. Being that people of common identification to you (atheist) are making a forceful contribution to the irrelevance and worthlessness of the Religion forum, I would ask you to take the issue up with them, as well.
Imagine that someday someone finally obtains true proof of Jesus Christ: what forum would you discuss it in? Anthropology? Archaeology? What happens the day someone quantifies the processes of an "angelic apparition"? Fascinating, but without a religion forum, there is no place to discuss the most apparent implications of such a discovery.
Whether it's the Shroud of Turin, a box of bones, or a piece of wood alleged to be from the Cross, the Religion forum has certain value at a scientific site. That the members don't care about that value is reflective of the members, not the forum.
A suggestive comparison: In my experience, at least 90% of the "responsible gun owners" I know of are not "responsible" in the manner they assert. They still shoot while drunk, still keep guns where children can reach them, still believe that shooting something is the solution to anything. That 90% of gun owners don't know how to use their guns is not accepted as a reason to get rid of guns, is it?
Just as the responsibility of a gun owner reflects on the user and not the tool, so it is with our boards. Just because 90% of the people arguing the religious forum probably ought not be for lack of any clue what they're doing does not mean the forum needs to disappear.
Think about it in social terms: When a people doesn't understand something, and chooses to ignore it or cast it out, when has that ever worked?
Here: we don't know what to do with it so let's throw it out.
thanx,
Tiassa
Closure of Religion forum?
I'm positive, Cris, that you remember the days when the front page of Exosci was a news clipper.
The religion forum rises out of necessity from that phase. Without it, certain archaeological or anthropological evidence have no place to be debated here. It's well enough to debate techniques discoveries, but if you can't explore the impact of those scientific events, what's the point?
Respecting your proposition, we should also drop World Affairs, Ethics Morality & Justice, Free Thoughts, and Art & Culture.
At which point I look forward to seeing how many people bother posting.
In the end, the Religion forum, at least, is necessary because it's always been a vital part of Exosci/Sciforums.
That neither theists or atheists alike have, in general, used the topic for such a regard for religion is their own choice. I mean, think of it this way: Here we have a topic with some scientific potential, as Adam has pointed out, as well as a topic which proposes a method for examining religious texts according to modern and scientific principles, and it's important enough for a poster to come out and contribute nothing of value to the topic. I'm happy to explore Adam's proposed mirror neurons, but I'm more than a little disturbed, as one might be able to tell, at Godless' entry to the topic. I'll get back to Adam's point when I finish my reading, but such posts as his are a minority in the Religion forum. It's all what's important to people.
If the Religion forum isn't that important to someone, why should they bother reading or posting in it? What is the direct antagonism that compels people to muck up topics with worthless distractions? It seems convenient in the specific sense that for all the poor atheistic performance at the Religion board, I find it odd that you, Cris, an atheist, are asking for the removal of that board. Address the members of your common identity.
On a personal level, Cris: you and I often expect certain shortcomings of certain paradigms. It is, in part, one of the reasons why you're an atheist. The perception of a pattern and expectation of the same is fair. In other words, I expect the Sir Loone's and Musclewhatsits and other shouting babble from religious folk. Being that people of common identification to you (atheist) are making a forceful contribution to the irrelevance and worthlessness of the Religion forum, I would ask you to take the issue up with them, as well.
Imagine that someday someone finally obtains true proof of Jesus Christ: what forum would you discuss it in? Anthropology? Archaeology? What happens the day someone quantifies the processes of an "angelic apparition"? Fascinating, but without a religion forum, there is no place to discuss the most apparent implications of such a discovery.
Whether it's the Shroud of Turin, a box of bones, or a piece of wood alleged to be from the Cross, the Religion forum has certain value at a scientific site. That the members don't care about that value is reflective of the members, not the forum.
A suggestive comparison: In my experience, at least 90% of the "responsible gun owners" I know of are not "responsible" in the manner they assert. They still shoot while drunk, still keep guns where children can reach them, still believe that shooting something is the solution to anything. That 90% of gun owners don't know how to use their guns is not accepted as a reason to get rid of guns, is it?
Just as the responsibility of a gun owner reflects on the user and not the tool, so it is with our boards. Just because 90% of the people arguing the religious forum probably ought not be for lack of any clue what they're doing does not mean the forum needs to disappear.
Think about it in social terms: When a people doesn't understand something, and chooses to ignore it or cast it out, when has that ever worked?
Here: we don't know what to do with it so let's throw it out.
thanx,
Tiassa
tiassa,
Given that I have spent some 99% of my time in the religion forum it would seem odd that I suggest it be deleted. I will admit the discussions there have been great fun and I have a learnt a lot. But I suspect the fun comes from having such easy targets such as Loone, Jan, truthseeker, whatsup, etc, who are so far outfield that one can’t help find some major holes in their positions. Science on the other hand requires some more serious and careful thought, and perhaps because my science background is not so strong as I would like then I don’t feel so confident in the sciences. But science holds my real interests and religion is just a play area. And yes clearly I prefer to play than learn.
From a purely selfish standpoint I would like the site to attract some real scientists and dissuade activity that we see from whatsup, loone, etc. In brief I would like to learn more science through the use of this very pleasant interactive medium. So in this respect religion seems out of place in a science forum.
So my question is really one of what is the intention and direction of the site? We have a wide range of subjects and forums. I notice that some members stay only in religion, while others stay strictly in science. There doesn’t seem to be an overall theme that joins them all together. My suggestion of deleting religion is an attempt to create a theme that is more along the lines of pure science. But you are right, where does art and current affairs fit into that. The site offers a great deal to many, much like a shopping mall has a disconnected mixture of a wide variety of stores. Perhaps my sense of order should not feel offended that the site does not have a clear theme.
Perhaps, also since I am 50 and in a minority age group here I would like to see the site attract more members of my age range, and that does imply more mature and advanced subjects. And that isn’t going to happen with a heavily skewed age range towards the young and with ideas being floated that would encourage more of them and less of my group.
Of course if proof ever became available for any religious subject then it would cease to be a religious matter and becomes a genuine area for scientific study. I.e. if it detectable then faith is no longer needed and acquisition of knowledge (science) kicks into gear.
I don’t really expect anyone to delete the religion forum, and I would be disappointed if that occurred. I suspect that it would feel better if it was downgraded and simply included under philosophy instead of having its own category. That might help dissuade the religious crackpots that come here.
Cris
Given that I have spent some 99% of my time in the religion forum it would seem odd that I suggest it be deleted. I will admit the discussions there have been great fun and I have a learnt a lot. But I suspect the fun comes from having such easy targets such as Loone, Jan, truthseeker, whatsup, etc, who are so far outfield that one can’t help find some major holes in their positions. Science on the other hand requires some more serious and careful thought, and perhaps because my science background is not so strong as I would like then I don’t feel so confident in the sciences. But science holds my real interests and religion is just a play area. And yes clearly I prefer to play than learn.
From a purely selfish standpoint I would like the site to attract some real scientists and dissuade activity that we see from whatsup, loone, etc. In brief I would like to learn more science through the use of this very pleasant interactive medium. So in this respect religion seems out of place in a science forum.
So my question is really one of what is the intention and direction of the site? We have a wide range of subjects and forums. I notice that some members stay only in religion, while others stay strictly in science. There doesn’t seem to be an overall theme that joins them all together. My suggestion of deleting religion is an attempt to create a theme that is more along the lines of pure science. But you are right, where does art and current affairs fit into that. The site offers a great deal to many, much like a shopping mall has a disconnected mixture of a wide variety of stores. Perhaps my sense of order should not feel offended that the site does not have a clear theme.
Perhaps, also since I am 50 and in a minority age group here I would like to see the site attract more members of my age range, and that does imply more mature and advanced subjects. And that isn’t going to happen with a heavily skewed age range towards the young and with ideas being floated that would encourage more of them and less of my group.
Of course if proof ever became available for any religious subject then it would cease to be a religious matter and becomes a genuine area for scientific study. I.e. if it detectable then faith is no longer needed and acquisition of knowledge (science) kicks into gear.
I don’t really expect anyone to delete the religion forum, and I would be disappointed if that occurred. I suspect that it would feel better if it was downgraded and simply included under philosophy instead of having its own category. That might help dissuade the religious crackpots that come here.
Cris
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
I don’t really expect anyone to delete the religion forum, and I would be disappointed if that occurred. I suspect that it would feel better if it was downgraded and simply included under philosophy instead of having its own category. That might help dissuade the religious crackpots that come here.
Agreed. And I suppose that by crackpots you meant trolls. But then again some of the other forums attract trolls to.
Agreed. And I suppose that by crackpots you meant trolls. But then again some of the other forums attract trolls to.