Fair play;

[infamous]

When offering up new topics for discussion that are logically not provable, how absurdly cruel to wrongly criticize others for speculating about alternative views because they have no proof.

[alexander]

infamous, i think it is all dependant on circomstances...

[pgrmdave]

Originally Posted by FAQ

But please respect these ground rules:

If you make strange claims, please provide proof.

While I don't disagree that it is frustrating, this is a science forum, so proof can be requested at anytime, or at least evidence.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by infamous

When offering up new topics for discussion that are logically not provable, how absurdly cruel to wrongly criticize others for speculating about alternative views because they have no proof.

I agree with you, infamous. What exact thread do you have in mind? Or is it a general problem here, do you think?

[BlameTheEx]

pgrmdave

That FAQ is fair too.
It may seem like splitting hairs but there is a big difference between speculations and claims.

[pgrmdave]

I don't disagree with the faq, I was just saying that it can be frustrating at times.

[Bo]

of course most new ideas start without proof, but pure by speculation. "might it not be that...."

But of course a final answer "... and still i dont agree" has hardly any scientiffic value..

Bo

[infamous]

Originally Posted by Tormod

I agree with you, infamous. What exact thread do you have in mind? Or is it a general problem here, do you think?

Obviously any thread discussing the existence of God. I believe that some members here intend to bait others into debates where proofs are't possible and then point an accusing fingure because they can present no proof. Maybe we need to treat such topics with a little more flexability or simply construct a format at Hypography titled, (for speculation only).

[Freethinker]

I would love to see specific examples of ANY topic that can not be approached in a logical rational, fact based, manner. I would ask for specific examples, but it seems that those that find this to be a problem are also those that never bother to acknowledge that they have even been asked questions.

What we once more hear is that any discussion in which god is brought in for an explanation, should be immune from any need to prove the existence of this god and it's ability to interact in any manner with us. We have seen this approach from hard core believers before here. Threads started with sepcific instructions to exclude even any desire to include facts and logic from the discussion.

What is it it that so scares Believers that they want to be able to remove any pretext of critical examination?

Foolish question I guess. The answer is obvious to all, Even if those most afraid will refuse to acknowedge it.

But it brings up another (most like to also go unanswered) question. Why do believers want to come to a fact/ science based site and then get upset when they are actually asked to stick to facts and science? If you want to ramble on aimlessly, parrotting mindless platitudes and superstitions' dogma, rather than entering into rational, intellectually honest discourse, why not just stay on the Christer sites thar are intended specifically for it?

And pgr, I am favorably impressed.

[infamous]

Originally Posted by Freethinker

I would love to see specific examples of ANY topic that can not be approached in a logical rational, fact based, manner. I would ask for specific examples, but it seems that those that find this to be a problem are also those that never bother to acknowledge that they have even been asked questions.

What we once more hear is that any discussion in which god is brought in for an explanation, should be immune from any need to prove the existence of this god and it's ability to interact in any manner with us. We have seen this approach from hard core believers before here. Threads started with sepcific instructions to exclude even any desire to include facts and logic from the discussion.

What is it it that so scares Believers that they want to be able to remove any pretext of critical examination?

Foolish question I guess. The answer is obvious to all, Even if those most afraid will refuse to acknowedge it.

But it brings up another (most like to also go unanswered) question. Why do believers want to come to a fact/ science based site and then get upset when they are actually asked to stick to facts and science? If you want to ramble on aimlessly, parrotting mindless platitudes and superstitions' dogma, rather than entering into rational, intellectually honest discourse, why not just stay on the Christer sites thar are intended specifically for it?

And pgr, I am favorably impressed.

Appears we have found an elegant fit for this pair of shoes.