Question about forum rules.

[Peartree]

Just stay out of the Watering Hole. Not sure why it exists, anyway.

And yet... here we are...

 

[patelldp]

And yet... here we are...

I can handle it, others can’t.

And the wheel goes round.

 

[Andrew_ASC]

Welp... I just gave NAR S&T and motor certification groups along with clubs a PROPULSION thread to Sh*t on the Flyers complaining of long motor certification times in an attempt to improve the process. They can ask us for support for a change and if people want to donate testing site locations or certify EX motors I guess they can discuss that too. Don't know the rules on that...

 

[Steven]

Welp... I just gave NAR S&T and motor certification groups along with clubs a PROPULSION thread to Sh*t on the Flyers complaining of long motor certification times in an attempt to improve the process. They can ask us for support for a change and if people want to donate testing site locations or certify EX motors I guess they can discuss that too. Don't know the rules on that...

Rules, did someone say rules?

 

[dr wogz]

I don't quite get all of this. What is the issue?

Simple rule of thumb:
Treat political & religious views as "genitalia".. A wonderful thing to have, a wonderful thing to possess, magical items they are. They help define us. Love them, hold them, care for them, share them with your friends & family..

But when you start waving them around in public or insisting on showing / sharing with everyone [strangers, general public, large groups like this, etc..], we start to have problems..


Starting a thread entitled "Who's your hero?" and expecting the masses to pick one [your favorite] individual is wrong. Especially when you take offence at the replies, or expect it to be taken seriously.
Starting a thread entitled "God / Jesus / FSM is my hero" will garner support and praise from like minded individuals. Others will then just pass it by..
Replying to a thread with "You're wrong because my beliefs /views / God / political leaning is...." is wrong. That's just being arrogant.
Replying to a thread with "I see your point, but I must disagree." and leave it at that. If you feel you need to explain, be nice about it, and respect the other's views.. Expect / realize others have different views / takes / opinions.

Don't preach. Don't take offence.

(I find this is one of the hardest things to do in life. We're taught to 'be right'. And when we're wrong, we, for some reason, need to feel shame in not knowing, or wrongly knowing.. Learn from it! Move on..)

 

[prfesser]

I intend this as a legitimate question about the forum rules where religion is concerned. (I didn't want to further hijack the Col. Nance thread.)

I realize that some of you will disagree with me vehemently, and I am not seeking your ire. I do not want to start a debate, I simply want a rules clarification from a moderator. I take no responsibility for follow-up posts made by other people that do not serve only to clarify the rules.

That being said, I would like to posit that atheism is a religion, and that it should be covered by the same prohibitions as other religious discussion. My case is as follows:

1. If there is a God, he exists outside of time and space.
2. Anything that exists outside of time and space is undetectable by the scientific method.
3. Anything that is undetectable by the scientific method cannot be proven not to exist.
4. A truly objective, scientific evaluation of the possibility of the existence of God must arrive at agnosticism; i.e., "we don't know."
5. Therefore, to be an atheist is to believe by faith in the unprovable notion that there is no God, and thus atheism is a religion.

It thus seems to me that the rules of the forum should treat any post that is clearly atheistic as a violation against the rules of discussing a religion.

If I am wrong, I would like for a moderator to explain the fallacy of my logic. Otherwise, I would like to know that any complaints I make about atheistic posts will be acted upon by the moderators.

Thank you.

#5 is a strawman argument. If you asked most atheists "do you absolutely KNOW that there is no supreme being?" they would say no. #5 is NOT what they think. Yes, a few might say yes but they're the exception.

Most atheists will say "I don't think there is a supreme being. I'm willing to entertain your objective arguments to the contrary. But I want objective evidence, not feelings, not quotes from scrolls a few centuries old, not statements from purported authorities. And the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary is the evidence that you need to present to support the claim."

The operative word is "think", not "believe" or "faith". I don't "believe" or "have faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. Belief and faith imply a lack of objective evidence. I *think* the sun will rise because there's a huge amount of evidence to support it. But I might be wrong; alien beings may blow up our sun tonight to make way for a hyperspace expressway. (I keep my towel handy just in case )

Agreed, most atheists do not think that the Judeo-Christian Yahweh exists. (Perhaps it's partly because so many of his/her/its acts described in the Bible are simply horrific and are not representative of a benevolent supreme being. Do you think that it's morally okay to have bears tear children to bits because they made fun of a bald head?) But again...if there's objective evidence to the contrary, they're usually willing to listen to it.

As to science being a religion....scientists rely on objective evidence. We think there are atoms, in fact we're quite sure though we've never seen one (STM provides images consistent with atomic theory but no one has actually *seen* an atom.) That's why we have atomic theory; it's an explanation that is consistent with pretty much all that we've found out about matter over the last couple centuries. It's been modified; the atomic theory proposed by Dalton in 1804 is not quite the same as what I teach in my classes. Current theory has more detail for a better explanation. But if someone comes up with an alternative theory that does not require atoms AND explains more about matter's behavior than does atomic theory, it will eventually become accepted. Unlikely but possible, I suppose.

In other words science is TENTATIVE not absolute. (The media seems to portray science as absolute; as in so many other things, they're wrong....) The reason you hear "more study is needed" so often is that the views presented by the scientists are tentative. More data is needed to support (or not) that which has been proposed. You'll hear both "red wine is good for you" and "any alcohol is bad for you" because there are studies supporting, to some extent, each statement. Until more studies are done and more data is acquired, the question of whether you should drink a glass of wine with dinner isn't extremely-well-supported by science. So you makes your choices and you lives with them.

Religions, on the other hand, do have absolutes, and therein lies the difference. The idea that Yahweh doesn't exist is not to be considered, period. If memory serves, a few years back there was a debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham; it ended with a question something like "What would cause you to change your views?" Nye: "Evidence". Ham: "Nothing"

Best regards,
Terry

 

[muddymooose]

I don't consider atheism to be a religion for the simple fact that it is the *absence* of religion.

Personally I have no use for religion. It just does nothing for me. That said if someone wants to say "thank God my L3 went off without a hitch" I don't think much of it. On the other hand if comments on every thread include pervasive and forcibly-injected "It's because of Jesus that..." or "God has blessed me with bleh blah..." then I start to roll my eyes. Matthew 6:5, people.

 

[dhbarr]

The Missus and I talk sometimes about how most people are basically pretty chill, it's just the Extra Crispy ones that make it weird.

Patriotism? Original Recipe; Pogroms? Extra Crispy

Religion? Original Recipe; Crusades? Extra Crispy

Exercise? Original Recipe; Rhabdo? Extra Crispy

etc. etc. Of course, I actually love extra crispy, extra spicy fried chicken. Maybe I'm the problem....

 

[grouch]

Religion? Original Recipe; Crusades? Extra Crispy

Oh man...gonna bag on Crusaders huh?

 

[shreadvector]

ROCKET RELATED!!!!!

https://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?29286-Estes-Crusader-Swing-Wing-Glider-(-1961)-Gallery

:wink:

Oh man...gonna bag on Crusaders huh?