This PPR forum could be enjoyable, but it's oten not.

Post Reply New Topic

Atheists are not being silenced. Instead they are the cultural majority and often don't pay attention to basic kindness in the matter.

I don't think the argument is pointless from an atheist standpoint, as there are considerations that push one against the existence of God.

Also, what it is to me is that I find idiocy painful, so reducing it is always desirable. Bad arguments and positions are stupid. Some of those bad arguments and positions include religious positions, so I'd want to reduce them.

It was meant tongue in cheek, I think the general tone of the thread could be taken as debate or aggression so I thought something jovial might help.



And I would love to live in a world where the word of an imaginary friend isn't enough to convince people not to fly planes into buildings murdering thousands.

We do not live in such a world.

I would love to live in a world where the demands of insane young earth creationists were irrelevant to teachers of biology, we do not live in such a world.

If the religiously minded would go and reject in practice what they reject in words and live like the Amish they would be free to continue 'unmolested' by me. Unfortunately they don't.

They wish to deny the scientific reality that created computers while at the same time using the very same technology to spread their ignorance. They wish to deny biology and call it evil while at the same time enjoying the long life and health that modern medicine brings.



Rather a lot of things are black and white.

Like reality.

You can deny the existence of gravity and claim that you can fly all you want, we can argue about it all night long but if you aren't prepared to go jump off a cliff and prove what you claim I'm still going to call you a lying coward and a fantasist. Even if you do find it rude, bigoted and irrelevant.

Which in essence is no different to the motto the Royal Society adopted at the start of the enlightenment, Nullius In Verba.

Not everyone who wishes to discuss religion wants to "witness", some of us want to investigate it from an anthropological/cultural viewpoint. It's just a special interest, not a desire to assert absolute truth. If I wanted to have a discussion about pantheism would you jump in and post that of course trees and rocks don't have spirits, you're not rational? Please, I just want to talk about the historical/cultural aspects of pantheism, OK?

Asking people to defend their views is not necessarily an attack and it seldom is in this forum. However, a "right to voice your opinion" is not a right to never get challenged on it. Plus the right to share opinions obviously applies also to people that have views completely opposed to yours. Whether you are a republican, a communist, an atheist or a religious person, this forum has to challenge your views. If your views are never challenged then you may as well write them in a diary. If you just wanted to write them without repercussions.

People who fear of sharing their opinion out of fear of being attacked because of their odd speech pattern would be glad to be able to be involved in a real discussion about their actual views rather than the way they speak.

Nowhere did I say that's not acceptable and no, I wouldn't jump in and say that because that would be an example of a drive-by post that I mentioned I don't agree with.

Reality is relative.

No, just our perception of it.

This is one of those things that is impossible to prove (although I have a hypothetical test that involves a handgun)
I prefer to believe in objective reality as it makes human endeavor meaningful

What kind of questions did you plan to ask the hand gun? Handguns often have limited social experience as well, much like us.

I was referring to things on a quantum level but I just threw that out there as a diversion. I'm tired of asking a question and having people answer a different question. I'm tired of trying to make my point understood. Every discussion doesn't have to be a battle for intellectual superiority. I am going to stop watching this topic and I will continue to avoid PPR.

I think the implication is to ask the handgun only one question. If reality is relative, you get an answer. If reality is objective, you may or may not.

There are times when whats an attack depends on someone´s perspective of things and I understand we all have to make an effort trying to put ourselves in other poster´s shoes to avoid misunderstandings just as it happens in real life.
However Ive seen the words: delusional/ignorant/stupid/... thrown at the other party too oftenly and there´s no doubt about those constituting an attack.


I never said asking someone to defend their opinion in an attempt to understand their train of thought was an attack. As long as this questioning isnt done in a attempt to mock the other person´s views its more than welcome.
However I see that insults are thrown around too often during this questioning and that isnt welcome.

I have doubts.
If you take a wonder through google's definitions of the word delusion


An idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument,

(psychology) an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary

A false belief that is resistant to confrontation with actual facts; The state of being deluded or misled; That which is falsely or delusively believed or propagated; false belief; error in belief

Having an irrational belief that cannot be changed by a rational argument

A false belief that persists even when a person has evidence that the belief is not true



Given the absolutely astounding amount of evidence for evolution, to be a creationist is, by definition, to be delusional. Unless of course the person has lived a very sheltered life, in which case they are ignorant of the facts.

Using words according to their correct definitions does not constitute a personal attack, would you remove all critical thinking from PPR and have us only post <<<hugz>>> ?

So, I then am quite sane.

Lets take it from the rules: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt73835.html
1. Posting offensive language, comments, video, or images.
Unacceptable content includes swearing; racist, sexist, homophobic language; behavior intended to provoke or belittle other members;
2. Personal attacks.
This includes insinuation, ridicule and personal insults, regardless of whether direct or indirect. Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable, but attacking the person making the comments is not.

From the bolded parts:
If you are able to claim the other party is delusional without: a)intending to provoke/belittle others b) trying to ridicule them its acceptable. Otherwise it isnt.

Im aware that wp rules are a bit too vague/left to interpretation but we consider any suggestion that the other party needs some sort of mental help to be a personal attack unless its done in an attempt to help them. I doubt you are trying to help the other party when you are calling them delusional so its considered to be a personal attack.

Again you are more than free to provide this facts that the other party is refusing to accept and ask their opinion about them and try to reason with them, however calling them delusional isnt acceptable by wp rules.

[attempts friendly humour]

With that hair?

[/humour]