Make the CT forum Members only

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And who decided who is the "best person for the job"? The same incrowd and so the cycle continues...

What disqualifies the outgroup as being "the best person for the job"? Their history of discretions, which according to the OP is due to the prevelance of antagonism and provocation which is enabled by the policies decided by the ingroup and so the cycle continues...

It's a posters ability to not rise to provocation that is a big factor. If you can still remain civil and treat other posters with respect when they are hurling abuse at you, then you show qualities which are required to mod. It's like I had to say several times to posters when I modded CT; If someone personally insults you, report the post and let a mod deal with it, whereas if you respond in kind, it escalates and both posters end up saying stuff and getting warned/infracted/banned.

When I started posting in CT, I got banned for getting in an argument. And once, I requested a ban to prevent myself from getting in an argument. After that, I stopped arguing. Do you think I would have been asked to be mod if I'd kept arguing? That's the problem, the majority of posters on the forum keep arguing.

And for what it's worth, we have suggested pro-CT people for mod in the past who have been rejected higher up the food chain due to past history or history on other forums on Boards or whatever reasons we're not privy too.

As for "...the prevelance of antagonism and provocation which is enabled by the policies decided by the ingroup...", what policies are you referring to?

King Mob

Why not more strict moderation? Start handing out more warnings for posts that are considered overly aggressive or insulting but not quite warning worthy under the current charter.
But of course giving people fair warning of the crackdown first.

Brown Bomber

LoLth wrote: »

selection of a mod based on their beliefs/gender/tenets/nationality is not going to happen

Yeah, fair enough. I was only making suggestions, not demands or even requests that I thought could benefit everybody. Believe me it was just as tedious to write it as I am sure it was to read. I apologise to the CT mods if they feel undermined in any way, that wasn't my intention. And to King Mob I especially apologise, I shouldn't have singled you out, it was a mistake on my part.

Monty Burnz

Hmm...I seem to have had a post deleted. It seems pointing out flaws in Boards.ie wrt conflict resolution with mods is VERBOTEN even if raised in the context of a mod saying how a poster handles conflict is a factor in whether they are considered suitable to become a mod...

LoLth

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Hmm...I seem to have had a post deleted. It seems pointing out flaws in Boards.ie wrt conflict resolution with mods is VERBOTEN even if raised in the context of a mod saying how a poster handles conflict is a factor in whether they are considered suitable to become a mod...

no, its not forbidden. its just out of place in this thread.please open a new thread on it.

hooradiation

Sarky wrote: »

You're not suggesting someone planned it to go that way, are you? >_>

I did.
Dance my puppets, DANCE!

Jeboa Safari

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And who decided who is the "best person for the job"? The same incrowd and so the cycle continues...

What disqualifies the outgroup as being "the best person for the job"? Their history of discretions, which according to the OP is due to the prevelance of antagonism and provocation which is enabled by the policies decided by the ingroup and so the cycle continues...

I think the current mods are fair enough and doing a decent job.
Also, its not as if someone from the CT side hasn't been a mod before. And its the wrong road to go down making people mods because they fall on a certain side, its like having quotas, you end up picking people because of who they are rather than their ability to do the job

superluck

gibraltar wrote: »

If you honestly believe something as fundamentally wrong as the above then I think you should stop looking into conspiracy theories and have a look at the theory of evolution.

Look buddy, if you want to believe humans evolved from monkeys, that's fine and dandy, I really don't care and would appreciate you not trying to explain it. It's a bunch of BS to me.

While it's obviously more plausible than Adam and Eve, I wouldn't go as far to say it's factual unless of course Sir. David Attenborough was sent back in a time machine to record every year of mans evolution. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

Darwins theory is conjecture, not fact and there's a big difference, I have a theory of my own where man came from but you'd probably think I'm a nutjob explaining it.

Any Conspiracy theory posted on the CT forum should be treated for what it is...a supposition, something that's completely uncertain and unknown to be true or false, maybe it's both.

The sceptics like to believe they're highly intellectual and can easily explain everything about the world on the CT forum in a fairly condescending manner.

Just because in a sceptics mind something seems implausible and the OP can't provide empirical evidence to support his theory, doesn't mean the theory is false or flawed in any way what so ever and this is something people like King Mob have a problem with.

He uses the usual "oh..i'm poking holes in your flawed logic, of course it's unreasonable to demand evidence to support your beliefs" --

erm, no you're not poking holes in anything, you just don't understand the meaning of "Conspiracy Theory"

King Mob demands empirical evidence for everything.

It's not a science forum so why is empirical evidence required for a belief?
You can't conclude a theory is true or false based on your own beliefs.

Put it like this, I can't prove God exists but then I can't prove he doesn't exist either and nobody else can.

Just because you might not believe a God exists doesn't give you the right to enforce your own opinion as fact and believe you're intellectually superior to someone that does believe in God.

King Mob

superluck wrote: »

King Mob demands empirical evidence for everything.

It's not a science forum so why is empirical evidence required for a belief?
You can't conclude a theory is true or false based on your own beliefs.

I have stated several times on this thread that's not what I look for unless something is claimed as empirical fact.

But you've already decided on your sweeping generalisations which make your points completely hypocritical.

superluck

If either side of an argument is unable to provide empirical evidence to support their belief in a theory or part of it, then nobody ...nobody is right or wrong, it's left open to speculation, that's how a CT should be discussed. Not arguing about the lack of evidence to prove it when you have no evidence to disprove it.

More often than not, you've concluded that a theory is false because there's no empirical evidence to support it ...yet you're unable to provide empirical evidence to disprove the theory.

That's hypocritical and really is flawed logic.

You demand empirical evidence to support a belief which contradicts your own but if the OP can't provide it, you believe you've won the argument!

King Mob

superluck wrote: »

If either side of an argument is unable to provide empirical evidence to support their belief in a theory or part of it, then nobody ...nobody is right or wrong, it's left open to speculation, that's how a CT should be discussed. Not arguing about the lack of evidence to prove it when you have no evidence to disprove it.

More often than not, you've concluded that a theory is false because there's no empirical evidence to support it ...yet you're unable to provide empirical evidence to disprove the theory.

That's hypocritical and really is flawed logic.

You demand empirical evidence to support a belief which contradicts your own but if the OP can't provide it, you believe you've won the argument!

Superluck, please actually read what I said to you before replying.

For the forth time on this thread. I do not look for empirical evidence unless something is claimed as fact.

I ask for the reasons why people believe something or believe that it is possible. That's it.

superluck

KM, I'm a little tired of your condescending tone.

I've read your posts and I've pointed out to you a little problem with your evaluation of conspiracy theories.

Even if a poster claims a theory to be factual without providing empirical evidence, you cannot disprove the theory based on your own beliefs. You must provide evidence to prove the theory false if that's what you believe.

You might not agree with this, but If you tell me God doesn't exist and I ask you to prove it, if you're unable to provide empirical evidence, does that mean God exists?

I'm not trying to confuse you here, I'm saying we don't live in a monochrome world where everything is true or false, black or white.

Maybe something is true, maybe it's false, who can say for sure? That's what a CT is about, it's uncertain but I have seen you argue that you've disproved a theory because the poster couldn't provide empirical evidence to support a theory which they believe to be fact.

Judging by your analysis of Conspiracy Theories, you and others seem have difficulty accepting that you haven't disproved a theory just because the OP couldn't support it with empirical evidence.

gibraltar

superluck wrote: »

Look buddy, if you want to believe humans evolved from monkeys, that's fine and dandy, I really don't care and would appreciate you not trying to explain it. It's a bunch of BS to me.

Thats not darwins theory so maybe you should have a look, its obviously not what you think it is.

"I have a theory of my own where man came from but you'd probably think I'm a nutjob explaining it."

I have no idea if I would think you a nutjob but I do think this highlights a issue that occurs often in the CT forum, you have 100% decided on your own answer without knowing the alternatives. You are sure your theory is better than darwins but you admit that you dont even know what darwins theory is... can you see the problem with this?

superluck wrote: »

Look buddy, if you want to believe humans evolved from monkeys, that's fine and dandy, I really don't care and would appreciate you not trying to explain it. It's a bunch of BS to me.

While it's obviously more plausible than Adam and Eve, I wouldn't go as far to say it's factual unless of course Sir. David Attenborough was sent back in a time machine to record every year of mans evolution. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

You stated that you didn't want it explained but also wanted to be corrected if you were wrong so I will aim for the middle and say maybe check it out for yourself.

Honest truth is it comes across that your quite passionate about this stuff so I will be honest with you, when someone states that something they don't understand is wrong it would make me doubt the quality of other information they then try to give me.

Torakx

Am i the only one here who uses ignore?
although i will admit it is a little annoying when others reply to our regular trolls i have on ignore and i can see said trolls quotes in their reply.
apart from that though, the ignore function seems to help me filter the forums for myself.

I do see why people ask for a members forum or members sub forum.

Because even if for people like myself,who use the ignore function, there would still be a ton of egotistical bull pasted in between honest responses, which makes it extremely confusing for newcomers.

I think a members sub forum is a nice idea in theory.
I think it would be much easier for us to research as a group.
As it stands if you make a ct thread here, you will have to be prepared tpo be trolled and abused, or layed upon heavy with satire and sarcasm.

In a subforum as suggested, these theories might become more substantiated before moving them into the "arena" for the opposition,which we all know there is, no matter the ct in many cases.

The thing is, i enjoy skeptical comments because i am also a skeptic about everything.
I like to play th devils advocate alot and appreciate well thought skepticism.
So i wouldnt want a sub forum that totally excluded the public.
Really its the small few who are obviously against most Ct and try to derail them at every turn in as respectful a manor as they can manage.


So maybe if we had a sub forum,thread topics could be reposted in the main ct forums aswell.But that seems awkward in some ways so im not sure if there is an easy solution there, without adding too much work for mods/admins etc.

As it stands my ignore button is doing a good enough job for now.

Madam_X

From my reading of it, it's only the particularly off-the-wall theories that are ridiculed - because the originator can't provide sufficient support for their theory. Surely there's nothing wrong with questioning them?

Horrendous anti-semitism in there also.

DB21

Y'know, the irony of conspiracy theorists ignoring other opinions is not lost on me :pac:

Corkfeen

I'm just gonna use the Atheism & Agnosticism forum as an example. Pretty much every day on that forum, the religious post. As long as they provide arguments for the rationale of their beliefs rather than trolling, posters will happily debate them. So, as long as posters in Conspiracy Theories post cogent arguments in favour or against the theory that's being discussed, there shouldn't be an issue. I'll happily admit that I recently made a remark about a poster in CT that resulted in an infraction and I view this to be a perfectly fair punishment, surely this is enough.

Many of the Conspiracy Theories are exceedingly easy to deconstruct and expose weaknesses in, isn't this beneficial for all the posters? Our critical faculties should be used far more for such questionable concepts. To simply cut out those who disagree with a theory, limits honest discussion.

superluck

Corkfeen wrote: »

Many of the Conspiracy Theories are exceedingly easy to deconstruct and expose weaknesses in, isn't this beneficial for all the posters? Our critical faculties should be used far more for such questionable concepts. To simply cut out those who disagree with a theory, limits honest discussion.

That's not the problem on CT forum.

I would welcome ALL sceptics on condition they convey their opinions with respect for the OP and most importantly come to accept their own opinion is not fact.

If I could recommend a change to the CT charter;

With absence of evidence from opposing sides of a theory, there's no valid conclusion.

Currently, the burden of evidence is placed entirely on the poster that wants to discuss a theory and this in my opinion is where the discussion descends into an exchange of insults.

Sceptics believe they're intellectually superior than the OP and argue the absence of evidence proves a theory is false.

Please explain to me how absence of evidence from 1 side of an argument proves a conjecture is false.

It's a completely illogical conclusion to arrive at.

Come to think of it, it's not even a problem that affects CT forum but the whole site in general.

There's so many uppity posters that believe their own opinion is fact.

gibraltar

superluck wrote: »

T
If I could recommend a change to the CT charter;

With absence of evidence from opposing sides of a theory, there's no valid conclusion.

I say that an invisible teapot orbiting the moon controls the weather on earth, you have no evidence to say the invisible teapot is not there, therefore my theory is a valid as any other... so you don't think there is any valid conclusion to be made about the above statement?

superluck wrote: »

That's not the problem on CT forum.

I would welcome ALL sceptics on condition they convey their opinions with respect for the OP and most importantly come to accept their own opinion is not fact.

superluck wrote: »

There's so many uppity posters that believe their own opinion is fact.

Would this be like you deciding that the theory of evolution is simply conjecture, even though you don't know what the theory is, and that your own opinion is better?

superluck wrote: »

That's not the problem on CT forum.

I would welcome ALL sceptics on condition they convey their opinions with respect for the OP and most importantly come to accept their own opinion is not fact.

A brief selection from your posts;

superluck wrote: »

Listen you sad man, if you know the answer tell us all, otherwise go away and try getting a life instead of coming on here to annoy people because that's all you seem to be good at right now.

superluck wrote: »

What you rambling about now hooradiation?

Go and read about it, i'm not here to hold your hand like you're some child.

Start here

Only a complete idiot would believe private banks were intended to lend money to the government with interest.

superluck wrote: »

Right,

Now where is your hypothesis? Where is Jonny7 with his opinion?

Seriously, do you even have the ability to formulate an opinion on what we're discussing or do you just repeat whatever you heard on the news?

I see nothing in this thread from you MB or Jonny7 that contributes to the topic constructively.

Maybe you should spam in AH instead.

superluck wrote: »

Seriously MB, I have no energy to respond to this drivel, today.

I have to say though, you put very little thought into your posts on this forum and I don't think you even take this stuff seriously, you're just here to amuse yourself which is pretty sad.

Would you honestly say that you are conveying your opinions with respect?

superluck

gibraltar wrote:

I say that an invisible teapot orbiting the moon controls the weather on earth, you have no evidence to say the invisible teapot is not there, therefore my theory is a valid as any other... so you don't think there is any valid conclusion to be made about the above statement?

Let's look at my statement

With absence of evidence from opposing sides of a theory, there's no valid conclusion.

You seem to interpret this to mean any theory will be valid due to lack of evidence from either side which is incorrect.

The theory you've provided would be invalid for 2 reasons

1. You do not provide evidence to support your theory.
2. A Sceptic could disprove it using evidence.

My statement is perfectly reasonable if you think about it.

Would this be like you deciding that the theory of evolution is simply conjecture, even though you don't know what the theory is, and that your own opinion is better?

I sense this is a little personal to you.

Believing Darwin's theory of evolution to be fact because of overwhelming support from the scientific community and some historical evidence does not mean it's fact.

We live in a universe that knows no bounds, has no age or origin or direction, it's a complete mystery so I often compare modern day scientists to the local parish priest 50 years ago who had all the answers to life then.

Your thinking is not much different to a religious zealot preaching about creationism, but remember, that's just my opinion, not fact.

I agree, Darwin's theory is much more reasonable, but it's not fact.

Would you honestly say that you are conveying your opinions with respect?

You've been very selective with my posts which is unfair. I was responding to extremely rude people who show little respect for opinions they disagree with.

Sarky

Wikipedia is your friend.

superluck wrote: »

We live in a universe that knows no bounds,

Current evidence puts it at around (6.64424 × 10^21) square light years. Probably a bit bigger, owing to the time taken for light from the edge to reach back to this planet, but that's just pointless speculation until we find anything further away.

has no age or origin or direction

It's a little under 14,000,000,000 years old, give or take a hundred million years. The COBE mission found the background radiation from the big bang. It was an incredibly successful endeavour that returned highly accurate results. It also ties back to the size of the universe, you find the outer edge of the explosion, you find its limits.

It doesn't particularly need an origin beyond the big bang stuff, although there are a few interesting theories for that. They have some evidence and they fit observable facts. "God did it" is not one of those theories. Why not give it another 50 years and see how our knowledge has changed? Or you can look at a jigsaw depicting eyes, ears, mouth, nose, and claim nobody can KNOW it's a face because the corner pieces are missing. That's cool too.

Expanding is a direction. The universe is going everywhere at once. Question answered.

it's a complete mystery so I often compare modern day scientists to the local parish priest 50 years ago who had all the answers to life then.

It contains plenty of interesting things nobody's fully explained yet, sure, but calling it a complete mystery is incredibly ignorant. You cheapen the discoveries of centuries of astronomers and astrophysicists, and all the amazing things they keep finding out, and it's not doing your argument any credit. "It's a mystery" doesn't cut it in any field aside from religion. Everyone else goes and finds out more about it.

Your thinking is not much different to a religious zealot preaching about creationism, but remember, that's just my opinion, not fact.

Your opinion isn't very smart. Have you considered a different one?

I agree, Darwin's theory is much more reasonable, but it's not fact.

Darwin's work was a long time ago. Knowledge of evolution has come on a long, long way since then. It's by far the most likely mechanism for explaining why we're here, seeing as no other hypothesis ever put forward has a shred of supporting evidence. At this point, there really is no other option to explain our origins in such detail and accuracy. Go ahead and claim it's not fact all you like. Technically, you'll be right. But you'll also sound like a crackpot. Or at the very least, the kind of pedant who never gets invited to parties.

Sorry about the tangent, Buffybot/LOLth etc. I'll bow out now. unless someone else derps along with a "just a theory" comment, anyway.

gibraltar

superluck wrote: »

Let's look at my statement

With absence of evidence from opposing sides of a theory, there's no valid conclusion.

You seem to interpret this to mean any theory will be valid due to lack of evidence from either side which is incorrect.

The theory you've provided would be invalid for 2 reasons

1. You do not provide evidence to support your theory.
2. A Sceptic could disprove it using evidence.

My statement is perfectly reasonable if you think about it.

First of all I do not need to provide evidence according to you,

superluck wrote: »

T
Please explain to me how absence of evidence from 1 side of an argument proves a conjecture is false.

It's a completely illogical conclusion to arrive at.

superluck wrote: »

Just because in a sceptics mind something seems implausible and the OP can't provide empirical evidence to support his theory, doesn't mean the theory is false or flawed in any way what so ever

Secondly according to you again, a skeptic can not use my lack of evidence to disprove the theory, nobody can disprove my invisible teapot afterall.

superluck wrote: »

More often than not, you've concluded that a theory is false because there's no empirical evidence to support it ...yet you're unable to provide empirical evidence to disprove the theory.

So I don't need to provide evidence and no evidence can be shown to disprove my theory so its as valid as any other surely?

superluck wrote: »

Believing Darwin's theory of evolution to be fact because of overwhelming support from the scientific community and some historical evidence does not mean it's fact.

There is more than some evidence. You have shown before that you do not even know what darwins theory is so how can you dismiss it?

superluck wrote: »

We live in a universe that knows no bounds, has no age or origin or direction, it's a complete mystery so I often compare modern day scientists to the local parish priest 50 years ago who had all the answers to life then.

So are you dismissing the entirety of scientific knowledge? generation after generation of people who have dedicated their life's to the study of the universe and everything in it are all wrong? Do you honestly believe that science offers no answers to any of the things you mentioned?

superluck wrote: »

Your thinking is not much different to a religious zealot preaching about creationism, but remember, that's just my opinion, not fact.

A religious zealot... ok... what I have been questioning is how you can dismiss a theory (not just evolution, any theory you like) as wrong without even understanding the theory?

superluck wrote: »

You've been very selective with my posts which is unfair. I was responding to extremely rude people who show little respect for opinions they disagree with.

So you responded by being rude and showing little respect for their opinions?

I feel I have been polite to you and in return you have compared me to a religious zealot, and I do not feel it was unfair to look at your history of posts and highlight some of the ones I found that are rude and disrespect other's opinions - the very thing you are criticizing people for doing.

superluck

Sarky wrote: »

Wikipedia is your friend.

Current evidence puts it at around (6.64424 × 10^21) square light years. Probably a bit bigger, owing to the time taken for light from the edge to reach back to this planet, but that's just pointless speculation until we find anything further away.

I'd summarise your sentence with 1 word.

It's a little under 14,000,000,000 years old, give or take a hundred million years. The COBE mission found the background radiation from the big bang. It was an incredibly successful endeavour that returned highly accurate results. It also ties back to the size of the universe, you find the outer edge of the explosion, you find its limits.

It doesn't particularly need an origin beyond the big bang stuff, although there are a few interesting theories for that. They have some evidence and they fit observable facts. "God did it" is not one of those theories. Why not give it another 50 years and see how our knowledge has changed? Or you can look at a jigsaw depicting eyes, ears, mouth, nose, and claim nobody can KNOW it's a face because the corner pieces are missing. That's cool too.

Expanding is a direction. The universe is going everywhere at once. Question answered.

Ah okay, so you're basing this opinion on the big bang theory.
It's a funny theory...reminds me of that riddle of which came first, the chicken or the egg?

How did the explosion occur? Did someone construct a bomb and light a fuse? Who can say?

It contains plenty of interesting things nobody's fully explained yet, sure, but calling it a complete mystery is incredibly ignorant. You cheapen the discoveries of centuries of astronomers and astrophysicists, and all the amazing things they keep finding out, and it's not doing your argument any credit. "It's a mystery" doesn't cut it in any field aside from religion. Everyone else goes and finds out more about it.

Your opinion isn't very smart. Have you considered a different one?

If you have something better, let me know.

Darwin's work was a long time ago. Knowledge of evolution has come on a long, long way since then. It's by far the most likely mechanism for explaining why we're here, seeing as no other hypothesis ever put forward has a shred of supporting evidence. At this point, there really is no other option to explain our origins in such detail and accuracy. Go ahead and claim it's not fact all you like. Technically, you'll be right. But you'll also sound like a crackpot. Or at the very least, the kind of pedant who never gets invited to parties.

So glad we can agree on that.

gibralter wrote:

First of all I do not need to provide evidence according to you,

I'm sorry you don't understand my statement.
It could be rephrased better but english isn't my first language.

With absence of evidence from opposing sides of a theory, there's no valid conclusion.

This means, If I post on the CT forum that mercenaries are being funded by the US in Syria and you disagree with that without providing factual evidence to disprove it, the theory is inconclusive.

Does that make more sense?
Opinions are not evidence.

You can't use your opinion as evidence to conclude a theory is true or false, it should require hard evidence from either side.

If a CT poster claims something is fact, he/she should provide enough factual evidence to prove it.

The same logic can be applied to UFO or 'Flying Saucers' -- a catch-all term to describe Alien spacecraft.

We have no hard evidence to prove these ships or aliens exist but then there's no way to disprove the they don't either...just like it's impossible for us to prove a god exists or doesn't exist (not that I believe in a god) but i'm saying this is something no scientist can prove or disprove.

Just because you find an idea/thoery implausible, doesn't mean it isn't true.

And no, I'm not saying I believe in UFO or Aliens or God for that matter.

I don't look at theories being either true or false when there's lack of evidence to positively conclude the correct answer, sometimes we just have to accept it could be either.

Sarky

superluck wrote: »

I'd summarise your sentence with 1 word.

And you'd be wrong. Leave the glib remarks to more talented people.

Ah okay, so you're basing this opinion on the big bang theory.
It's a funny theory...reminds me of that riddle of which came first, the chicken or the egg?

How did the explosion occur? Did someone construct a bomb and light a fuse? Who can say?

The fact that you're thinking of it in those terms shows almost complete ignorance about it. Don't be so childish, you're better than that. And again, leave the glibness to people who can actually use it.

If you have something better, let me know.

I gave you one. You're more interested in responding with sub-par one-liners to score cheap points than you are in understanding it. The fault lies with you. Stop being sh*tty at people, pick up a book or two. Try starting with The Science Of Discworld, it's very accessible, while still dealing with complex issues about how much we actually do know about the universe. Also, there's an orangutan that says "ook" a lot. What's not to like?

So glad we can agree on that.

Enjoy your pedantic, meaningless victory. I'll be at those parties nobody invites you to.

gibraltar

superluck wrote: »

If a CT poster claims something is fact, he/she should provide enough factual evidence to prove it.

This contradicts your previous post;

superluck wrote: »

Just because in a sceptics mind something seems implausible and the OP can't provide empirical evidence to support his theory, doesn't mean the theory is false or flawed in any way what so ever

superluck wrote: »

More often than not, you've concluded that a theory is false because there's no empirical evidence to support it ...yet you're unable to provide empirical evidence to disprove the theory.

superluck wrote: »

I don't look at theories being either true or false when there's lack of evidence to positively conclude the correct answer, sometimes we just have to accept it could be either.

Again using my invisible teapot controlling the weather as an example, as nobody can prove that the invisible teapot is not there then we just have to accept that it could be correct?

Also can I ask you my previous questions again as I am very curious,

Are you dismissing the entirety of scientific knowledge? generation after generation of people who have dedicated their life's to the study of the universe and everything in it are all wrong? Do you honestly believe that science offers no answers to any of the things you mentioned?

superluck

Sarky wrote: »

And you'd be wrong. Leave the glib remarks to more talented people.

Ah okay, so then the "pointless speculation" is fact?

If the universe is constantly expanding, what's it expanding inside? And what's outside of it? and who created it? and who created him/her/it?

If your Gods in the science/atheist community ever manage to figure this stuff out, please come back and tell me because i'd love to know.

The fact that you're thinking of it in those terms shows almost complete ignorance about it. Don't be so childish, you're better than that. And again, leave the glibness to people who can actually use it.

Pot calling the kettle black.

In future when you want to be smug, leave out your own childish glib remarks.

I gave you one. You're more interested in responding with sub-par one-liners to score cheap points than you are in understanding it. The fault lies with you. Stop being sh*tty at people, pick up a book or two. Try starting with The Science Of Discworld, it's very accessible, while still dealing with complex issues about how much we actually do know about the universe. Also, there's an orangutan that says "ook" a lot. What's not to like?

Your religion is science and your disdain for my own beliefs is quite similar to how christians disrespect you and your beliefs.Dawkins, Darwin..these are your Gods, not mine.

Enjoy your pedantic, meaningless victory. I'll be at those parties nobody invites you to.

Go and cry in the atheist forums about how insane people in the world are for not blindly accepting everything a scientist prints.

This contradicts your previous post;

I agree, It does and I expected you to highlight this.
But that was then and this is now, I've revised my statement which we've been discussing since.

Again using my invisible teapot controlling the weather as an example, as nobody can prove that the invisible teapot is not there then we just have to accept that it could be correct?

If we're using science to disprove your theory, that would be easy.
Additionally, you've not supported your theory with any evidence.

I'm not explaining this to you anymore, I suggest you look up the meaning of the words in my statement and then sit and think about it ...sorry but i'm fed up answering questions about a tea pot floating in space that controls weather on earth...it's silly for obvious reasons.

It's a poor example for the usual "i'm pointing holes in your logic" argument....it only proves you can't comprehend the statement I made.

Also can I ask you my previous questions again as I am very curious,

Are you dismissing the entirety of scientific knowledge? generation after generation of people who have dedicated their life's to the study of the universe and everything in it are all wrong? Do you honestly believe that science offers no answers to any of the things you mentioned?

I haven't dismissed anything, I'm just not accepting it as fact, there's a difference.

Is this all fact? I think we've established it isn't. Yes, I'm being pendantic.

You accept it as factual despite information being inconclusive.

Let's call it a supposition, that's exactly what it is.

Wouldn't you say the scientists still need a lot of work to do before concluding how exactly our universe was created?

A big bang theory is not conclusive, let's say it's work in progress.
Maybe man will discover eventually but probably not in our lifetimes.

Monty Burnz

superluck wrote: »

Ah okay, so then the "pointless speculation" is fact?

If the universe is constantly expanding, what's it expanding inside? And what's outside of it? and who created it? and who created him/her/it?

If your Gods in the science/atheist community ever manage to figure this stuff out, please come back and tell me because i'd love to know.

To be fair, what's the alternative to trying to figure this stuff out? Picking a creation myth from one of the religions and sticking to it?

I'm sure some people never thought we'd figure out what the universe was made of, and science has done a pretty good job of that - to the point of re-staging the Big-Bang in particle accelerators. It's entirely possible that in 100 or 500 years people will find it hard to comprehend a world where people didn't know the answers to the questions you pose above.

superluck wrote: »

Your religion is science and your disdain for my own beliefs is quite similar to how christians disrespect you and your beliefs.Dawkins, Darwin..these are your Gods, not mine.

That's a bit like saying 'your orange is an apple'. Science isn't a belief system, it's just a method.

gibraltar

superluck wrote: »

I agree, It does and I expected you to highlight this.
But that was then and this is now, I've revised my statement which we've been discussing since.

So your opinion changed from "no evidence is needed" to "evidence is needed", ok, a radical shift I think. What made you change your mind about your entire argument?

superluck wrote: »

If we're using science to disprove your theory, that would be easy.
Additionally, you've not supported your theory with any evidence.

So you want to use science to disprove my theory...

superluck wrote: »

I haven't dismissed anything, I'm just not accepting it as fact, there's a difference.

Is this all fact? I think we've established it isn't. Yes, I'm being pendantic.

You accept it as factual despite information being inconclusive.

Let's call it a supposition, that's exactly what it is.

But you don't accept science as being factual. So its not a fact but it can disprove my theory despite - you not believing it? I think you need to take a moment and get your opinions straight because you seem to be contracting yourself an awful lot.

superluck wrote: »

It's a poor example for the usual "i'm pointing holes in your logic" argument....it only proves you can't comprehend the statement I made.

The holes in your logic that you agree exist since you changed your opinion?

And which statement do I not understand? the one where you said evidence was not needed? the one where you said evidence was needed? or the one where you said evidence made no difference?

You are asking for changes to be made to the forum yet your opinion on the issue has shifted 100% from no evidence to hard evidence.

Since you consider the entire realm of science to be "inconclusive" i am at a loss about what you would accept as evidence.

superluck

gibraltar wrote: »

So your opinion changed from "no evidence is needed" to "evidence is needed", ok, a radical shift I think. What made you change your mind about your entire argument?

I minced my words, was very tired at the time...

So you want to use science to disprove my theory...

Well, first of all, you haven't provided any evidence to support your theory so how is it even valid?
If you had said "I don't don't believe this is fact, but I heard a theory that a teapot is floating up in space controlling the weather here on earth"

Fine, someone then could easily debunk that theory using science. But it's retarded example you use anyway, nobody would be that stupid to post such a theory.

Also I never once said science wasn't valid...you're misunderstanding me not to mention misrepresenting what i've said.

Here it is one last time:

With absence of evidence from opposing sides of a theory, there's no valid conclusion.

You don't seem to understand my statement.. it requires evidence of both those for and against a theory before it can be validated. End of story.

What don't you understand about that? actually don't bother answering, i don't care anymore.

But you don't accept science as being factual.

Where did I say that? complete rubbish man....what I said was, inconclusive evidence cannot prove a theory true or false.

So its not a fact but it can disprove my theory despite - you not believing it? I think you need to take a moment and get your opinions straight because you seem to be contracting yourself an awful lot.

You're talking nonsense now buddy, go and look up the words in a dictionary.

The holes in your logic that you agree exist since you changed your opinion?

*sigh*

I've said all I can be bothered to say to you at this point, you're putting words in my mouth now. You actually sound like KM now.

From the very first post about your tea pot theory, you weren't even making sense there....so congratulations for carrying it 4-5 posts forward and still not getting anywhere.

Channel Zero

Am not in favour of this on balance, but can understand why the OP has brought it up.

Haven't read through the rest of the thread yet, and am a newbie compared to some there, but there's 2 problems with the forum that come to mind:

-Thanks whoring
For example: cracking jokes, usually at the expense of the 'theorist', snide comments to appeal to the gallery etc. A bit of fun and gentle ribbing is great and all, but it sometimes gets OTT and disrupts the discussion.
I suppose the 'regular' posters can feel entitled to to take the p a bit which is fair enough as they also contribute interesting posts. But the lurkers who come in just to joke, troll or disrupt are a different story. It doesn't bother me greatly personally, but perhaps it's annoying for some who don't want to scroll through 3 pages of one-liners when they're interested in the topic. Perhaps not. Anyway, it is what it is i suppose.

-Badgering
Not done by the vast majority in fairness but those that do, do it ad nauseum, and turn some threads into a nonsense imo.
For example: asking numerous loaded-type questions, then expecting them all to be answered or addressed. When the OP couldn't be bothered 'addressing' some of them for whatever reason, the OP is repeatedly accused of not addressing them. Everyone gets agitated. Thread ruined. Rinse and repeat.
It's grand to question things of course and quiz the OP or whoever, but nobody likes 20 questions flung out without any form of opinion attached. It's not a court of law, so there's no point in whinging when the thread is not going where the questioner wants it to go.

I've just thought of another one (so ala the Spanish Inquisition it's now 3 problems! with the forum as i see it.)
-Constantly dismissing media or otherwise sources without considering the contents within.
Whether it be RT or Press TV, sources can sometimes just dismissed as "state propaganda". Now it's fine to point that out, but if a short vid or article is brought to the table, it's sometimes unfair to just hand-wave it away without also viewing or commenting on it if it's related to the discussion. In saying that, if someone drops an hour and a half long film as evidence, that doesn't do much for discussion either.


Of course both 'sceptics' and 'theorists' have done these things on occasion (including myself). And just to say for all it's faults and pulling of hair and biting and screaming and 'how very dare you' from both sides, i still like the place.:)