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

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah, this going nowhere now. Still engaging to discuss though.

When is the next Star Trek movie out?

Yeah, let's just:

Is that a real sign?

Yes, it is.

What exactly does 'fuhgeddaboudit" mean? All is forgiven? Or You die now?

Both. And many more things besides. It is a magical phrase. If I had my own religion, I'd stick it at the end of prayers as a replacement for 'Amen'.

I think "fuhgeddaboudit" is like "dude" it's meaning depends on context. I'd like a prayer that started with Dude and ended with fuhgeddaboudit.

Yes, exactly.

Brevity rules.

Can atheists there have a conversation about atheism or some aspect of religion without it turning into yet another atheist vs. the religious thread?

Atheists don't seem to start a lot of threads about atheism, and that's probably because atheism is by definition something that exists in relation to something else; theism.

Atheism in action is almost always reactionary. Rather than atheists making threads about how great it is to be an atheist, how it enriches their lives or whatever, what we get is atheists getting into religious threads, and attacking religious views, and often, the people who hold them.

I haven't personally fielded complaints that the religious are constantly attacking atheism in PPR. I am sure it happens, (convert the heathens!) but I do not perceive that it is an overwhelming component of the PPR culture.

I do not perceive that PPR is a hostile environment for athiests. And that's because it's not. Atheism is the cultural norm in this subforum.

One of the problems (as I see it) with the PPR culture is it is primarily argument or debate oriented, and it is assumed that everything is fair game for poking your oar into as hard as you feel like it, any time any place, any impulse permitted. Unwritten rules, almost.

Not everyone with an interest in political, philosophical or religious subjects is interested in arguments. We just want to talk about interesting stuff. It doesn't have to be a fight for objective 'truth'.

I don't mind that people want to have heated debates and stuff, that's fine, it's not my bag. I recognise and respect the difference between my nature and other people's. But there's just no space for stuff that isn't that. Which effectively turns PPR into an area exclusively catering for only part of the WP membership who have an interest in discussing PPR subjects.

Some try to go against the culture, but they don't stick around. And I think that's a shame.

when people feel anything for what they talk about heated debates are inevitable, it has to me very little to do with personal inclination (you might not have heated debates but why is the question, is it because of the heated debates or the subjects at hand )

the problem is when heated debate lingers longer than the thread is relevant causing strife in other threads, people take too much too personal in PPR.

Can athiests compare notes on non-theology ( my nonbelief is more accurate than your nonbelief) by citing non-scripture to back up their non-belief without believers in religion intruding?


Thats like asking "can men discuss thier visits to the gynecologist without women intruding?"


Isnt the question itsself rather absurd?

Laying claim to some fundamental truth is the raison d'etre of all politics philosophies and religions.

Discussing Aristotle's new hairstyle does not count as philosophical debate, discussing his views on the nature of reality or of the human condition does.

Unless of course you are religious in which case you can simply declare Aristotle's teachings to be heresy and silence debate through banning anything you might disagree with and burning people at the stake for blasphemy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condemnati ... %80%931277
http://www.uscatholic.org/church/2010/0 ... -ban-books
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

I disagree.



I think you've completely misunderstood what I'm talking about. Is this in response to me, or have you moved on to something else?



I don't understand what you're trying to say, or how it that is relevant to what I posted.

I am quite interested in the teachings of Aristotle.

I feel persecuted by your disagreement with my views. I demand that you are silenced immediately.



It was in response to you.

The board on this forum that we are writing on is called Politics, Philosophy, and Religion (with a misplaced apostrophe)
If you look at the definition of the word 'forum' it is as follows:

A meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.

A forum does not exist so that only one view can be heard and dissenting voices silenced, it exists to allow many ideas to aired and tested. This forum's entire reason for being is so that differing opinions on PPR can be voiced.

Would you sanction a thread on holocaust denial where the OP states that only people who believe in holocaust denial can post, all other views must be censored to avoid the OP feeling offended?

How about a 'god hates fags' thread? homophobes only.



I am pointing out that people with religious belief have a long and sordid history of suppressing free debate by either claiming heresy in a fit of outrage or persecution to illicit pity when they encounter views that they do not like.

Always the first to defend freedom of speech when it is their own speech but swift to demand censorship when it is the speech of others.