really frustrated

[nutronjon]

I do want everyone to know that I take the threat of being banned seriously, but don't think this concern should take a thread off subject. A couple of times people have responded to my statements of being penalized and the threat of being banned, as though I am a child on the play yard who is whining needlessly. As I see it, if I am banned, I want everyone to know why. This is about my political concerns and concern that everyone understands the democracy and liberty that we have been blessed to have, but are loosing because the change in education has changed how we think about things.

I know these forums are not democracies, but that doesn't mean the owners can not be guided by democratic principles, and where is the place the individual can defend democracy, if this is not with his/her own principles?

Insulting people is a bad behavior and making a rule against that, and enforcing the rule with penalties protects the forum and everyone who comes here. Saying God is the stuff of the universe and forces that organize it, is not a bad behavior, but is stating a possible truth. I have proven what I am saying is a scientifically accepted possibility, and what is the logic of demanding I prove any more than that?

I am talking about justice here, verses, power struggles that are mean and can destroy our democracy if we do not understand the difference between penalizing bad behavior to protect the forums and the people who come here, and using power to prevent freedom of speech. To label my statement as preaching, is a bias against accepting the possible of the existence of God, and a distortion of the meaning of rule. People can preach God does not exist, as well as they can preach God does exist. What makes something preaching does not depend on if one believes in a God or not. If people can state as fact, that God doesn't exist, they can state as fact that God does exist. These statements are not equal to preaching. They are both equal statements of what a person believes is so, or believe is possible. I am not certain about the God thing, and that should be clear in everything I have said. It is a pain in the neck to have to say, this is a point of view, this is a hypothesis, this is what I think might be possible every time I write of God and if I have to do this, then so must everyone who states God doesn't exist, because saying there is no such thing as God, or there is no such thing as virus and bactria that we can not see, but that make people sick, does not the belief an undeniable truth.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

I do want everyone to know that I take the threat of being banned seriously

I don't recall anyone ever threatening to ban you, but I'm glad you take it seriously none the less.

but don't think this concern should take a thread off subject.

Thank you.

This is about my political concerns and concern that everyone understands the democracy and liberty that we have been blessed to have, but are loosing because the change in education has changed how we think about things.

That would be a good thread topic. In fact, another member, Coberst, has much to say about this subject.

I know these forums are not democracies, but that doesn't mean the owners can not be guided by democratic principles, and where is the place the individual can defend democracy, if this is not with his/her own principles?

I just don't see how this is relevant.

Insulting people is a bad behavior and making a rule against that, and enforcing the rule with penalties protects the forum and everyone who comes here.

Indeed.

Saying God is the stuff of the universe and forces that organize it, is not a bad behavior, but is stating a possible truth.

No, it is not stating a *possible* truth, it is stating it *as* truth. If you were to rephrase your sentence to say "I believe in God and I also believe that God is the stuff of the universe and forces that organize it", then it would be much more acceptable.

I have proven what I am saying is a scientifically accepted possibility, and what is the logic of demanding I prove any more than that?

You have not proved this at all. If you disagree, then please point to where you have offered scientific proof.

I am talking about justice here, verses, power struggles that are mean and can destroy our democracy if we do not understand the difference between penalizing bad behavior to protect the forums and the people who come here, and using power to prevent freedom of speech.

As has been stated many times, by many people, there is no limit of free speech going on here. Well, we do place limits on people talking about drugs and bombs, but hopefully that makes sense to you. In any case, if you feel that your free speech right has been violated, then please point out specific cases where this has happened. People will not take you seriously otherwise.

To label my statement as preaching, is a bias against accepting the possible of the existence of God, and a distortion of the meaning of rule.

Which statement? The one where you said "God exists and we can infer something about God by studying nature"?

People can preach God does not exist, as well as they can preach God does exist.

Yes, they can, but not here.

What makes something preaching does not depend on if one believes in a God or not. If people can state as fact, that God doesn't exist, they can state as fact that God does exist. These statements are not equal to preaching. They are both equal statements of what a person believes is so, or believe is possible.

Indeed. But do you see the difference between "I believe in God" and "God must exist"?

I am not certain about the God thing, and that should be clear in everything I have said. It is a pain in the neck to have to say, this is a point of view, this is a hypothesis, this is what I think might be possible every time I write of God and if I have to do this, then so must everyone who states God doesn't exist, because saying there is no such thing as God, or there is no such thing as virus and bactria that we can not see, but that make people sick, does not the belief an undeniable truth.

Such is the environment here. This is a science site and as such, we expect the conversations here to be of scientific interest. If someone makes the claim that god does not exist, I urge you to question them and ask them to prove it. They cannot prove it, just like you can't prove that we can understand god by studying nature. You've been asked many, many, many times how one can know anything about god by studying nature. Instead of answering this question, you avoid it. I don't blame you, there's no way to answer that question in a scientifically satisfying manner.

I know you are frustrated, Nutron. Frankly, I'm sad about the whole thing myself. We've had lots of communication over the last few months and just when I thought you understood, you turn around and post the same stuff. I'm at a loss here. I've really tried to work with you, I'm sure you'd agree. While you will not be instantly banned by me, or anyone else, it seems that you are choosing to head down the road of infractions. Infractions are meant as warnings to curb the behavior that the staff has seen unfit for the forums. It would be good if you heeded these warnings. If you do not, you will continue to receive infractions.

Please ask any questions you have about these issues.

[Mercedes Benzene]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

I know these forums are not democracies, but that doesn't mean the owners can not be guided by democratic principles, and where is the place the individual can defend democracy, if this is not with his/her own principles?

First of all, these forums are based on the principles of democracy. Your delusion is that these forums are under totalitarian rule, simply because you have been critisized and punished for your actions. These actions, however, are in direct violation of RULES. Citing a real life example: The second amendment gives citizens of the United States the right to keep and bear arms. This DOES NOT mean that you can go out and drop 9 rounds in someone with a semi-automatic whenever you wish. Analogically, this is what is occuring here. You have the right to discuss religion in the theology forums. You may also, conservatively, discuss your own views, but they are to backed up with sources that appropriately attempt to prove a point. You are not allowed to force your views, proselytize, or otherwise make anyone feel uncomfortable through religious banter. Those are the rules, not a total damper on your rights. If your looking for different rules, then there are many other places that you can find where you would fit right in.

Saying God is the stuff of the universe and forces that organize it, is not a bad behavior, but is stating a possible truth. I have proven what I am saying is a scientifically accepted possibility, and what is the logic of demanding I prove any more than that?

It is bad behavior, because it violates our rules. In a different forum, it may be acceptable, but here it is infractable, and if the behavior continues, bannable. Also, possibility or even feasibility does not imply fact, and when you are in a science forum, fact is all the matters. As you presently cannot prove the existance of existance of God or the relation of Gd to nature or the universe, it is not acceptable.

-MB

[modest]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

What makes something preaching does not depend on if one believes in a God or not. If people can state as fact, that God doesn't exist, they can state as fact that God does exist. These statements are not equal to preaching.

You are intelligent enough to understand the problems.

1. No Preaching or Proselytism
2. Backing up Claims

These rules are necessary to keep Hypography's integrity as a place of science. If you don't like these rules or you find them incompatable with your posting style then go somewhere with different rules.

Here is something you wrote today to clay:

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Change your definition of God,...

It is rude to demand people adopt your view of god. And, speaking of rude:

Originally Posted by nutronjon

This is dumb, dumb, dumb simply change your definition of God and we have no argument.

How many times do the mods and admins have to tell you preaching and proselytizing is not what this site is for? This has been explained to you again and again. It appears at this point that you may be incapable of writing about god or religion in any other way but to advocate your beliefs. Regardless if that's the case or if you are intentionally testing the rules, it is unwelcome and you will continue to receive infractions as long as you continue doing it.

In regards to backing up claims, you have done better - but you've also stramanned the rule in order to play victim. It is completely unacceptable to say this to a new member in the introduction forum:

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Avoid any discussion of God, or you will regret it. Stay out of the theology forum and don't mention God, and things will go just fine.

Whatever your problems with the Hypo staff, you can direct that toward us and not a new member.

These rules are very simple nutronjon, and exceptions will not be made for your posts. If someone demanded that you change your definition of god to a monotheistic god of Abraham or that you convert to atheism then they would be subject to the same infraction system that has befallen you. As moderators, we cannot make your views exempt just because they are more closely aligned with some of our personal beliefs than some tradition based religion. We must apply the rules fairly and consistently.

I hope that you are able to follow these two rules better and continue to post here as a valued member. I say this because I've enjoyed our debates in the past.

http://hypography.com/forums/philoso...-morality.html

I learned things about natural law in that debate. Hopefully we can have such an interaction again.

~modest

[nutronjon]

Look folks, the posters are very rarely the subject of threads, and the rule about insulting people needs to be changed, to avoid the problem that almost every forum has. Instead of a rule against insulting people, the rule needs to state that personal remarks making another poster the subject of discussion is a no no. It will take a lot of self control to stop making personal comments, unless we PM someone, or start a thread that makes the person the subject, but it would greatly improve the discussions.

A better way to word this is, make it a rule against putting people on the defensive. The discussions should challenge people's ideas, not the people.

[InfiniteNow]

I think you should build your own forum so you can implement all of these interesting rules and limitations you've so incessantly been trying to push here at Hypography. If you build your own site, you can do whatever you want with it.

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

A better way to word this is, make it a rule against putting people on the defensive. The discussions should challenge people's ideas, not the people.

Sorry, no can do.

If you make an outrageous claim, prepare to defend it.

For all its shortcomings, that's SCIENCE. And Hypo is a SCIENCE site.

[Mercedes Benzene]

*Moved from Watercooler* *Merged with "Really Frustrated"*

Stop it. You're just trying to get attention now.
Please stop making these unnecessary threads, and please review what content is appropriate for the Watercooler.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Look folks, the posters are very rarely the subject of threads, and the rule about blah blah blah...

I addressed this with you already. Did you miss it?

[modest]

Originally Posted by C1ay

I addressed this with you already. Did you miss it?

That link didn't work for me, I think this might be it:

Does God exist?

~modest