If you go to someone house as guest and degrade them that your house is inferior or odd than others, how should it be taken? Just dishonesty with that house. This forum is purely relate to Religion and Philosophy. People here, tend to discuss accordingly in consideration of it. For both skepticism & science, separate forums are allotted. Technically and logically, Here, everyone should discuss according to R&P standards not to be insisted for science or skepticism standard. When such dishonesty with this forum is there then augments become quite odd to which those who opt skepticism or science are only at fault.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?
- Thread starter Kumar
- Start date
I do not need teaching. Not overshooting but probably, in many things, I can teach whole world. I simply want to share.
Logically & technically, Neither science not skepticism to be made base here since separate forum for both of these are provided here. If you want to discuss science or skepticism, discuss these in Skepticism & science forum. Here, people tend to discuss as per R&P standards. Giving prominence to science or skepticism in this forum is a dishonesty and degrading to this forum. Calling for evidences instead of religious citations, logics etc. is dishonesty o this forum. Simple logic, apparent fact, religious citations etc. are sufficient to justify any saying here.
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
This forum is not a safe space for your religion. This particular subforum is where religion and philosophy are examined and discussed according to skeptics' principles. If you feel differently, you were invited to start a thread about it in Forum Management. You have not done so, hence no one is especially interested in your constant whining about how inappropriate everyone's behavior but yours is.
No, this is not a safe space for your religion. If you are unable or unwilling to endure criticism of your religion, you will not have fun here. You don't get to insist that everyone have reverence for your religion.
No. Look up in the upper-left corner of your browser. Do you see where it says "International Skeptics Forum?" The whole site is about skepticism.
No, you are not the moderator or the referee of this forum. You don't get to exclude science and skepticism from your discussion just because you can't stomach them.
No, it's not the skeptics' fault that people are taking a skeptical approach to your religious claims on a skeptics forum and that you can't handle it. You are on a skeptics website. Behave appropriately.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, you very much do. By your own admission you don't even know much about religions that aren't yours. You are clearly ignorant of most of the natural world. Not only that, you flagrantly insult people who do have knowledge you don't.
Such arrogance. You want to play at being omniscient and you want people to approve of that and give you credit for it. You are not entitled to praise you haven't earned. You are unteachable.
No, you don't understand what the rules and conventions are at this web site. Do not try to escape your embarrassment by appointing yourself moderator and declaring all your critics to be off-topic.
Peregrinus
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,213
Kumar, your stubbornness is outranked only by your unfailing ability to commit logical and factual errors in every single post as well as discounting or even rejecting every single attempt to show a correct side to whatever tangent you've spun out on. You will on some occasions actually say such-and-such is a good idea; then you blunder wildly on ahead studiously avoiding that very idea. The only purpose I can see to these threads is a very messy scorecard of whatever fallacies keep popping up and whatever appropriate means might be had to counter them*.
*There are entire web sites devoted to just that sort of "record keeping," maintained by persons who have far more time and patience than we.
*There are entire web sites devoted to just that sort of "record keeping," maintained by persons who have far more time and patience than we.
No, Technically, logically and practically, no discussions on other forum subject should be entertained in this forum. Since specific forums are allotted to both Skepticism and Science, all discussions on these should be entertained there only not in this forum. It pollute valid discussions for this forum only. Due to otherwise, discussions on R&P are becoming sub-standard but on other forums--skepticism & science are becoming prominent. Big irregularity, dishonesty and injustice to this forum--like what is happening in real and cultural world where these are being degraded but skepticism & science are upgraded. If skepticism is the motto of of this main forum i.e ISF, what was the need & logic to make separate sub forums on skepticism & science?
Sorry, you can not be the decider, teacher or judge to me. So avoid teaching, advising or taking my decisions. Simply share & contribute on topic if you can. My main odd is, I am bit odd in tasty interpretations to other by manipulating it. I may just be a bitter pill of truth and logic.
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
But this is not your forum and you do not make the rules for it. Your judgments or relevance doesn't matter. If you want to try to make it matter, there is a place here where you can do that. Start a thread in Forum Management to discuss whether arguments based on science are disallowed from the religion and philosophy section. I'm betting you won't do it. You have diligently cowed away from every opportunity to submit your personal judgment to anyone else's review.
I'm deleting the rest of your desperate rant. You're clearly terrified of the arguments and facts your critics are bringing to the table. Look at you pulling out all the stops trying to explain why such arguments shouldn't appear, and why you have no obligation to address them. Look at you appointing yourself the teacher of the world. Look at you appointing yourself the arbiter of someone else's web forum, populated by thousands of members and generating many thousands of words per day on the many subjects to which skepticism can be applied. You are quite possibly the most arrogant person I have encountered in my decades on this planet.
Why does ISF have subdivisions? For the same reason a book has chapters, a library has sections, and even the venerable Jainworld.com has topical divisions. Seriously, go look there yourself. The home page vectors the visitors off to children's corners, yoga advice, and any number of subjects to be explored from the Jain perspective.
It's cute that you think your declaration of irrelevance is obvious and incontestable. It does seem to fit the rest of your argument.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, I can. I know things you clearly don't. I've tried to teach them to you, but you're unteachable. Yes, I can judge you. I can look at your childish behavior and pass entirely defensible judgment that you are arrogant and prideful. But more importantly, I can certainly judge your claims and assertions and determine whether they pass muster according to the facts. And as long as you continue to post them in a forum that values facts, wisdom, and reason, I will proudly oppose any portion of your post that contradicts those values.
You seem to think this forum is your personal pulpit. You seem to think your mere membership here, yours no different than anyone else's, gives you the right to use it as you see fit and deny that right to anyone else but you. Moreover, you seem to think it's the responsibility of all the other members to do no more than give you approval and praise. For you certainly deny them the right to criticize you.
No. You don't get to determine what your critics may or may not offer in a debate of your claims.
What an arrogant and prideful opinion of yourself. Your critics have presented fact after fact, truth after truth. You bury your head in the sand and declare that your firm belief in your religion gives you the privilege to ignore whatever facts you want. Just within the past couple of days I've give you a detailed, comprehensive analysis of the logical footing of your argument. While you claim to be logical, it seems only your critics are actually talking about logic. No, you confine yourself to complaining about how everyone else is egotistical, unfair, and irrelevant. Your "pill" certainly is bitter, but not for the reasons you think. The bitterness is your constant immature whining. Grow up and address the questions and challenges you've been presented with in this thread.
Many members here have no real business than just to criticize and finding faults in others, entertainment, time pass & superiority complex.
It is quite logical, when separate sub-forums are allotted, matters related to those forums should be discussed in those forums ONLY. We can/should not discuss religion & belief in science & skeptical forums.
I am not allowed to approach & post in Form Management forum, so pointing out here. Do not speculate otherwises.
It is quite logical, when separate sub-forums are allotted, matters related to those forums should be discussed in those forums ONLY. We can/should not discuss religion & belief in science & skeptical forums.
I am not allowed to approach & post in Form Management forum, so pointing out here. Do not speculate otherwises.
I apologise that your permissions did not allow you to access some sections of the forum open to members. I have corrected those permissions and you can now access the Forum Management Feedback section. The question about science in this section has been answered here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12100061#post12100061
DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MOD BOX IN THIS THREAD - ANY comments regarding these issues belong in the Forum Management Feedback section or via PM to a member of the Moderating team..
DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MOD BOX IN THIS THREAD - ANY comments regarding these issues belong in the Forum Management Feedback section or via PM to a member of the Moderating team..
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Darat
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Getting back to the topic, I write here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12099191#post12099191 about the applicability of the elephant and the blind men story to the way knowledge can be gathered and evaluated regarding the alimentation of the human race, its historic and moral considerations. Kumar, would you care to respond?
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
Fine, Kumar. There was a special situation that nobody could be expected to know about. It has been corrected, so now get over it and move on.
Hans
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
When we discuss religion and philosophy, we judge them by the standards we use to judge things. If we are religious, we might judge other religions by their accordance with our beliefs. If we're scientifically inclined, we may judge them by their accordance with the things we consider to be the necessary truths of the universe. We can also do both, of course, as there are many people who are religious while not being the obstinate enemies of science and reason. Skepticism is the property of all. A Baptist can be skeptical of scientology without even stepping out of the pulpit.
Given your penchant for disparaging logic and reason, you really should never begin any statement of your own with "Technically and logically," since by your own standards, such a statement is bound to be faulty, if not downright "odd."
You are also wrong about there being a "separate forum" for skepticism. Skepticism is, not surprisingly, an over-arching idea in all areas of the website here known as the "International Skeptics Forum" of which this is a subset. The designation of Religion and Philosophy here is a suggestion of what topics are appropriately introduced here, not of how they might be discussed. If you posted about religion in a political subforum, the moderators would likely move it, not to protect it from skeptical attack, but just because it's in the wrong place. When I post about power tools and the cutting of framing timbers, or music, or poetry, or self driving cars, I do so in other forums, but this does not mean that a skeptic cannot challenge anything I say about those subjects.
And of course it hardly seems one ought to have to say this, but this is not your house. And, of course, if your house really is inferior, or "odd" in whatever insane sense that word is twisted to mean, it would not at all be dishonest if it is true. It would be impolite. But this is not your house and that's not where we are. It's a forum in which matters of religion and philosophy are argued. Not, necessarily, accepted.
If I asserted that, according to my religious beliefs, I am a crocodilian shape shifter from a future planet, would you consider it inappropriate for a person with knowledge of biology or astronomy or physics to point out that this is a stupid thing to say because it is scientifically, biologically and astronomically nonsensical? Your suggestion is basically an assertion that your position cannot be argued at all, since all religious doctrines are a matter of faith alone. If nothing but faith is allowed as an argument, it's just an adult version of a kids' playground bicker, yes it is, no it's not, yes it is, no it's not, ah you don't know what you're talking about, yes I do, no you don't, yes I do, no you don't ....Aaah, go fry ice!
Not as admin :
Kumar has left the building.
Kumar has left the building.
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
That was absolute and final ... but not surprising
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Now that he has some free time he should apply for a job with the Trump administration. He'd fit right in. Surgeon General maybe.
Sort of seriously of course it's too bad Kumar has left, almost certainly as ignorant as when he appeared, and as obstinately oblivious to the obvious fact that however great a structure of faith may be, it is built on little structures of fact. It is not science attacking faith for a person to point out where reality is violated. If there's room for faith at all, it is in the areas where science and logic and everyday good sense cannot yet go. The fact that our knowledge is not absolute and final leaves some room for mystery, but it does not invalidate what we know. Metaphysics is, by its very definition, what is beyond physics, not instead of it.
Kumar, if by some chance you are reading this, go in peace, but think more and preach less. Don't just drop the seeds and saunter off feeling holy. Plant them, cultivate them, take responsibility, and find out what works and what doesn't and why.
Sort of seriously of course it's too bad Kumar has left, almost certainly as ignorant as when he appeared, and as obstinately oblivious to the obvious fact that however great a structure of faith may be, it is built on little structures of fact. It is not science attacking faith for a person to point out where reality is violated. If there's room for faith at all, it is in the areas where science and logic and everyday good sense cannot yet go. The fact that our knowledge is not absolute and final leaves some room for mystery, but it does not invalidate what we know. Metaphysics is, by its very definition, what is beyond physics, not instead of it.
Kumar, if by some chance you are reading this, go in peace, but think more and preach less. Don't just drop the seeds and saunter off feeling holy. Plant them, cultivate them, take responsibility, and find out what works and what doesn't and why.
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
There are safe spaces for religion, but those are generally the temples and churches built by the believers. The world in general is not a safe space.
If you make religious statements in a church, you shouldn't expect much except approval.
If you make religious statements that allege fact in the world at large, it is not guaranteed that someone will respond or object. But if they do it's generally not inappropriate.
If you make religious allegations of fact in a forum specifically designated for skeptics, it is practically guaranteed that someone will test that allegation, if only to ask to see the evidence.
If, in that forum, you make religious allegations of fact that are scientifically testable, it is guaranteed that someone will present a scientific test.
If, in that forum, you make religious allegations of fact and assert that science has confirmed them, it then becomes a moral imperative to test the scientific validity of the claim. Let there remain no question that this is what Kumar tried to do. There is a gradation of incursion and thus a gradation in response. Kumar was subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny because he made the most impressive claim.
If you make religious statements in a church, you shouldn't expect much except approval.
If you make religious statements that allege fact in the world at large, it is not guaranteed that someone will respond or object. But if they do it's generally not inappropriate.
If you make religious allegations of fact in a forum specifically designated for skeptics, it is practically guaranteed that someone will test that allegation, if only to ask to see the evidence.
If, in that forum, you make religious allegations of fact that are scientifically testable, it is guaranteed that someone will present a scientific test.
If, in that forum, you make religious allegations of fact and assert that science has confirmed them, it then becomes a moral imperative to test the scientific validity of the claim. Let there remain no question that this is what Kumar tried to do. There is a gradation of incursion and thus a gradation in response. Kumar was subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny because he made the most impressive claim.