Discussion or Lynch mob - why can't we have a proper debate on Sheffield forum?

[Cyclone]

I'm so glad you posted this reply, as this makes my point.

As no proof exists then its an issue thats still up for debate:hihi::hihi:

 

I'm afraid not, anyone who holds a belief despite a complete lack of evidence in support of it is delusional. If it's a common delusion then it gets renamed religion.

[Cyclone]

The problem with debate threads IMO is policing the hardcore of posters who can't enter into sensible debating without getting all mardy about teh subject matter, especially if it's BNP related or some other "sensitive" issue.

 

Others just post "sensitive" material on purpose because they know it'll wind people up, which could be interpreted as trolling by some people, *cough* Shoeshine's Aspergers/Dyslexia thread *cough*

 

Ah, I see what you mean, for example if I said that Xbox360 is technically inferior to the PS3 and the microsoft are one of the worst things to ever happen to the software industry, then some people just wouldn't be able to debate it rationally

[Cyclone]

Yes, that's very similar to what the church's attitude to science used to be. (Oh, and there's only about 250 years' worth of scientific evidence for anything.)

 

Here's a point which fascinates me - true science is based on hypotheses which have not yet been disproved. If the hypothesis is 'God exists', this has not yet been disproved. True science does not postulate negative hypotheses (ie 'God does not exist') so an alternative hypothesis could be 'Science can explain everything' which it is incredibly easy to disprove.

 

I do think there's a difference between putting forward valid arguments against something you don't agree with and attacking someone's beliefs and even though I don't believe in a single nubbin of god or spiritualism I'd only get into a debate on the point with someone who wanted that debate.

 

If someone wants to believe in fairies I'm quite happy for them, as long as they don't expect me to waste my time running round the bottom of the garden with them.

 

A hypothesis must do several things to qualify. It must make some sort of prediction which in itself must be open to experimental testing.

So 'God exists' is not a hypothesis, it's just a statement. And if you ask anyone religious the very concept of god is deliberately formed in such a way that it is not open to experimental verification, because to try means you don't have faith. Faith is the antithesis of reason, a belief despite evidence or even in the face of evidence of the opposite.

[Fivetide]

I'm afraid not, anyone who holds a belief despite a complete lack of evidence in support of it is delusional. If it's a common delusion then it gets renamed religion.

 

So you don't believe that science can explain everything then?

 

 

Nah, I can go with the whole 'God exists' being a statement and not a hypothesis, but in the explanation of 'faith' (an important distinction) I think you've explained why people's faith is not open to criticism, although their particular expression of that faith might well be. The faith that there is a god that exists outside the boundaries of science is, yes, by it's very definition unsubstantiated but also impossible to undermine through scientific evidence.

[Cyclone]

True science does not postulate negative hypotheses (ie 'God does not exist') so an alternative hypothesis could be 'Science can explain everything' which it is incredibly easy to disprove.

 

You can sometimes prove a negative, but it depends on the size of the set. I can prove that I am not a girl. Because it's a limited set, effectively I prove that I am a boy and therefore I've proved that I am not the opposite.

 

How exactly would you go about proving that science can't explain everything? I'm guessing that you might prove that science hasn't yet explained everything, but that's very different to saying that it never will. Unless you have access to a time machine I suspect that proving the latter is one of the impossible negatives as the set is infinite.

[Jabberwocky]

Ah, I see what you mean, for example if I said that Xbox360 is technically inferior to the PS3 and the microsoft are one of the worst things to ever happen to the software industry, then some people just wouldn't be able to debate it rationally

 

Post of the year!

 

I cant wait for the reaction to this

[Cyclone]

Someone could post a thread asserting that the moon is made of Wensleydale cheese and, whilst you and all of the scientists on earth may disagree with them, they still have a right to hold and express their own opinion as long as their opinion is not hurting or offending others.

But they are wrong and shouldn't expect anyone to ever agree with them. In which case a thread where they try to argue the case for it being whensleydale is going to be a long list of people arguing with them and offering explanations as to why they are wrong.

 

Just because you disagree with them does not give you (the hypothetical you, that is) the right to call them an idiot, request the thread to be removed, or do anything other than present a polite rebuttal to their opinion in an appropriate place.

Of course it does (call them an idiot, not the others). If someone says something idiotic then why not call them an idiot and explain why?

 

The world is full of people who have different opinions and yours (again the hypothetical you) is not ever wholly correct.

In the example you gave there is a correct opinion, and there are many incorrect ones.

 

Just remember that Darwin was condemned by many as a heretic and lots of scientists and other figures throughout history have been excommunicated from the church and society for their 'beliefs' which we now consider to be fact rather than outlandish opinion or 'the work of the devil'.

 

That's because the church is inherently conservative and closed minded, new ideas threaten the power they held (hold in some cases) over the simple minded. General education and the scientific method are the worst things to ever happen to the church, they have completely destroyed their power in society and thus in the world.

[Fivetide]

You can sometimes prove a negative, but it depends on the size of the set. I can prove that I am not a girl. Because it's a limited set, effectively I prove that I am a boy and therefore I've proved that I am not the opposite.

 

How exactly would you go about proving that science can't explain everything? I'm guessing that you might prove that science hasn't yet explained everything, but that's very different to saying that it never will. Unless you have access to a time machine I suspect that proving the latter is one of the impossible negatives as the set is infinite.

 

Dammit, I wish I was a smart-ass atheist, instead of just an ordinary dumb-ass one.

 

Ah well, at least I tried. God-botherers - You're on your own [Edit - Probably].

[beer]

Yes, that's very similar to what the church's attitude to science used to be. (Oh, and there's only about 250 years' worth of scientific evidence for anything.)

 

Here's a point which fascinates me - true science is based on hypotheses which have not yet been disproved. If the hypothesis is 'God exists', this has not yet been disproved. True science does not postulate negative hypotheses (ie 'God does not exist') so an alternative hypothesis could be 'Science can explain everything' which it is incredibly easy to disprove.

 

I do think there's a difference between putting forward valid arguments against something you don't agree with and attacking someone's beliefs and even though I don't believe in a single nubbin of god or spiritualism I'd only get into a debate on the point with someone who wanted that debate.

 

If someone wants to believe in fairies I'm quite happy for them, as long as they don't expect me to waste my time running round the bottom of the garden with them.

 

Folk were burned at the stake for claiming the world was a sphere.

[Guest Mod_Man]

If you start a thread, whatever it may be, remember that not every one will agree with you. I have started many slightly controversial threads where people have been quite rude but that's what I expect when I start these types of threads. If someone was to post any old mumbo jumbo and not allow any criticism then SF would be very boring.

 

On the medium front, you say you hear them and want people to believe, prove it. That's usually all people want. Instead no you start a thread calling people who don't agree lynch mobs.

 

To those who think SF has changed for the worse, why not do as you used to suggest others do, leave. Has SF changed because people answer you back now JoeP or has the quality of thread suddenly dropped. A few weeks back you mentioned the bullying mob yet didn't provide any decent proof. I fear some people just like to label things or people as no fun any more or bullies purely because their status as SF's golden ones seems to be dwindling. No one forces anybody to use SF and I personally think it's a cracking indicator of public opinion.