s1eep

Okay, then I am wrong.

To be honest, I do update my thinking anyway, but I'll have to come out here, I find myself advancing faster through debate. I'll take your advice though, but I have many ideas of my own that I'd like to clear up first. If something I find more rational comes along, I'll probably change for the better. I'm no preacher, I just have a very unique perspective on many subjects; what I say is controversial, they are new things, and if true, it changes things. I guess, maybe that is what I'm trying to do, change things, but it's not for my own benefit. And I'm by no means preaching beliefs, I'm trying to articulate on my beliefs, otherwise, I wouldn't believe in them. I find it hard to put trust in other scientists when we live in a reality that is supremely artificial. A lot of people have no concern for the pure things, like trust. That doesn't mean I will say you're incorrect, if you are correct, but I wouldn't go to you first.

Can you describe 'soapboxing' to me, in your own words, without using a 'flimsy' definition? When we encounter things that are flimsy, we usually dismiss them as non-consistent/non-existent. The description, "someone who stands at a podium and preaches his idea", can be applied to most threads and posts on this forum; "and is ignorant of what others are saying", is more specific, the non-flimsy part of the rule. I think you'll find the flimsy part of the rule, paves the way for abuse of power through the moderators own ego and opinions. In cases where one person believes he/she is correct, and takes notice of someone's proof (which is usually not 100% true, and sometimes complete lies), but dismisses it as incorrect, the moderator can say, "you're soapboxing", because they were ignorant, for a reason other than being ignorant (in a useful way, to support one's belief further because one believes they have the correct answer even after the proof was shown). Then, the moderator looks righteous, but it's simply the flimsy definition that stood, which makes no sense really.

Sometimes ideas conflict and debates happen, which is what we were talking about. Way to subtract the post I was responding to...

Can we be relaxed and group all the things we don't like, associated with things against the quality of this board, evil (used as an adjective to describe something against my will, what was to experience a more reputable forum)? What I'm trying to say is, it's not that it's disliked, but that it's to be disliked, what is good for the board, is, ultimately, and that's what I'm trying to say, there is that which is against my will and that which is with my will. When people join a site they usually have something to say; I know that there are crazy people out there, in fact I think most of the human population is crazy. Moderation is good, I have nothing against it but I have problems with some of the rules sometimes. For example, I think 'soapboxing' is a rather loose term to be using in law, and can apply to many things and isn't so accurately defining what it's against. It's more of a trap than it is a law, because you don't have any inclination of what you're trying to avoid so a moderator can jump out at you, and be essentially, perverse, 'thuggish', etc, but for reason of the prosperous board. Presumably for non-sequitor reasons. I agree that close-mindedness is bad, which is why I'm, what I've decided to call "Anti-Theist"; basically, against Theists, because their so close-minded about stupidity. Everyone is a bit close-minded sometimes, we have to accept that, especially in debate, you can't expect others to accept that you're right so easily. And as for your last paragraph, the morality is upon the people under the leaders, and although there aren't a lot of moral judgements (which I presume you mean by diversity of tools and actions as such; this place is moderated well) for a moderator, morality is there. It could be more prominent, where there was greater diversity in tools and actions, in other cases beyond the forum; objective morality, in the sense that I'm using, a relaxed approach to collect all that is to be disliked and call it evil and it be a logical statement? EDIT: On the statement, of 'to be disliked', it's also that we dislike it, but neither is less significant than the other if we're being scientific. EDIT: And by no means am I saying it's always the case of us disliking it that makes it evil, I imagine there can be other reasons.

Yeah, something like that. My guess was for the immediate future, not long-term.

Chocolate is a noun. Intolerant and innocent are adjectives, and are related because they were both science-backed descriptions of a subject, not a subject themselves, or by itself. If you were my leader, and you thought this way about chocolate donuts, you may affect my objective morality, but the problem is, for what objective is eating chocolate cake good? It is however, probably sarcastic, so I won't continue criticizing the irrationality behind eating chocolate donuts being good.

Gets what? And I'm not being entirely accurate, some members I imagine have greater intelligence and thus find it easier to reject fictitious moralities, and can at least notice them. I believe there are people more intelligent than me, but I'm unsure whether there are many who are wiser (for example go check: "Humans and Earth" and what I stand for, plus maybe join in the the conversation/debate). Is morality there, then?

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. "the matter boiled down to simple morality: innocent prisoners ought to be freed" I can see the correlation between how we behave about 'soapboxing'... "the matter boiled down to simple morality: intolerant 'soapboxers' ought to be isolated".

Okay, then I will wait for other inputs. Can I ask why?

No, the quintessence of this community. The attitudes of all the members, the content within the replies themselves. What drives the community. what morals they have in accordance with the leaders (or their) objectives. I think you have really strict (maybe biblical) definitions of good and evil, that you can't think above or beyond. If we're being more relaxed. It is evil, for the board, if we allow 'soapboxing', because then it wouldn't be as good.

By no means am I discrediting the rules. I think you do a good job of keeping the forum. This discussion is just discussion. I suppose you can say a lot of members are objective about the board as well... Moderators are definitely objective about the board, they even go to lengths as to adjust it to get as close to perfection as possible. Do their credible (worthy to the cause) opinions, such as that 'soapboxing is unpleasant', cause us to believe they are evil (against the objective)? Does it come with objective morality?

Read: For example, we take the idea of creation from real life, by analysing reproduction or other types of creation occurring in the universe Rationality says that every effect has a cause; and this is consistent in the universe. Go back to a millisecond into the big bang, is it still the big bang, isn't it now the small bang? It's rational to even believe that it was small at some point, and then it grew big, for this is consistent throughout the universe, and with 'bangs' and the like. I'm saying the big bang must have had a cause, because something that contains so much potential, the likes of which we see today (ranging from trees, to cars, to computers, to animals), cannot come about through nothing at all, unless there was some force involved. A nuclear bomb, comes about through nuclear science and engineering, it then has to be fired. It's not the complexity of the universe that led me to thinking there was a cause to the big bang, it was the things that were evident, the rationality behind the universe as we know it---the things we do know.

Does leadership force others to have objective morality about the leader and it's desires? For example, the moderators here dislike 'soapboxing', and that is pretty much the common belief of all accepted members. Are we led to believe that things are evil or good (objectively), depending on the beliefs of our leaders? Is morality there but only in the dynamic and useful sense, it's ever changing depending on the situation---what 'objective morality' is?

I'm not sure, but people are influenced by other people into things like terrorism. A cult, or group, is something some people fantasize about at a young age. I wonder if playing a game is just as influential as having a conversation with a person to some, maybe more sceptical minds? I don't think they would allow a video game to be produced if it promoted terrorism. Are there control measures taken on games?

If you can point out where in this thread, I'll be surprised.... It's nothing in comparison to what wasteful humanity produces. For having the inclination to make this thread, I'd say I'm more of a scientist than you. Thank God we have moderators here to stop me insulting the obviously very kind and civil member base... Maybe you could ask people to address the points I make instead of throwing insults or nitpicking a single debatable point out of many.

I will volunteer, though, my dedication for the preservation of nature would be put to good use if I was alive. I made this thread...

I have replied to every post directly. In fact, you're accusing me of what you let others get away with. Multiple times in this thread have I wrote long replies only for them to be answered 10% (focusing on one sentence out of five or six paragraphs). So you're being unfair.... I don't agree with using slang words as rules, but it's a private forum, so I guess it's not my choice. Going by it's very loose definition, I'm not soapboxing, I'm talking to the person who argues with me directly, every time. Again, you're either being unfair purposely, or you haven't read the thread properly. It's irrational to believe the big bang didn't have a cause. At least you've tried 'the first step'. The big bang is speculation, we use the power of speculation to make theories, and then we go about proving those theories as correct. One of the points I brought up, it's not 'religious' to theorize things happening before the big bang, and that's the only argument on this subject since I agreed that my short-term position was deistic. The debate we were having was that "creation" (and all science attributed to God), should not be nullified with God as irrational, but instead separated because creation, and such, isn't God-exclusive. For example, we take the idea of creation from real life, by analysing reproduction or other types of creation occurring in the universe. We can then apply this to the beginning of the universe, as we did with a 'bang' we recorded from observation of nature, and applied it to the beginning to theorize the big bang. Even if creation, in this sense, is incorrect, that's all it is, the argument is that it shouldn't be "God-exclusive", or declared as religious. I then argued to say "Religion doesn't help society", which one person proved wrong, to which I countered, "It hinders society more so than it helps". And that's where we are at. You obviously haven't read the thread properly. Focus on the bold text in your reply to be on the same wavelength.

What is your response if not a formalized insult? And yeah yeah, my words make no sense but yours make great sense, I understand.

Sometimes what's subjective is important. If someone tried to rape your girlfriend, or murder one of your family members, you would want to prevent it. Why? I think your bland semantics around the topic of good and evil are irrational, and suppress a particular greatness. I don't like Religion, because I don't believe in God, and, as I said further on, it's ruining our societies more so than it is helping them. If you have a problem with that then go ahead and be ignorant.

Have you never seen reproduction? And religion hinders society more than it helps.

I don't think that's proof that religion is good. I've mentioned this before, we don't have to nullify the science behind religion; belief in a creator is not necessarily belief in God, because creation was taken from real life, whereas God is inane.

Well clearly in your minds and religious people's minds it does. Not only are religious people intruding on society, they also are perverting what I consider to be true good. Religion doesn't help society at all, and it sanctifies it's own version of good which makes what's really good become clouded, and the right men aren't seen as righteous. A lot of the stupidities of religion have carried on into societies. I said this before, but the perfect Atheism is non-existent (because God wouldn't exist). How am I supposed to go about with my 'lack of belief' for God, if it's been thrown in my face, even when trying to be scientific. The point MonDie is trying to make is something along the lines of 'ease of access', which I believe is a very casual and unprofessional stance to be acceptant of such stupidity. All humans could be rational-minded, but religion, and some other aspects of society probably best suited for another thread (some are addressed in my thread 'Humans and Earth'), are causing us to digress and a species, making the reality our children have to grow up in perverted. People tend to seek God because they believe God to be the ultimate answer; it causes them to put their perception of life in God, they have such complexity of God belief that it is stuck in their mind that it is true. God was intended, on many occasions, to be a human man with a heavenly fortress in the clouds. The bible was written by a human, and should be treated as any other book with an author is treated. The author(s) of the bible have made themselves invisible, all worship is truly to the authors and people who profit from theology. This is a problem because people that could be decent human beings who help humanity or their population, but they see good in God, so instead be good according to what some human said rather than their own senses, feelings and environment. I'm an Atheist, and I'm forced to be militant, because you are forcing God upon me, even though my own imagination and rationality led me to the belief/theory. If I'm correct about "theorizing things that came before the big bang is not God belief", then I'm correct. All the wordplay that came about through you guys trying to 'win the argument' has taken us onto new topics and away from the original point. My guess about primal imagination, can be considered deistic---the point I made here was that, if I'm Atheist, no it can't, it would just be answered with something like, "I don't know", not "You are deistic". "You are deistic" is a religious statement; an Atheist who uses this to categorize people who claim to be Atheist, as religious, is not an Atheist, but a pseudo-Atheist.

I shouldn't have to define God, it's a forced word by religious stupidity. My point is, you can't define God with a proper definition if you know nothing about it (there is no evidence). I do not know God. My point stands that Atheists who employ God as a means to categorize others into religion are, on the off-hand, religious themselves, for they support religion, they carry the faith in the form of pseudo-knowledge (treated as knowledge).

Is a scientists "know it all" mentality, projecting pseudo-knowledge, because our true mentality would be to "know ourselves" (which includes Earth; if we're combined)? Is advancement really off the planet? Where to may I ask, other planets, maybe another planet like Earth? If it's for resources, or because of overpopulation, there are more efficient methods that serve more specifically future children, such as euthanasia to a major part of the adult population, those causing the most waste and harm to humanity's future (let's remember that the conditions in the future will be harsh and people, including children, will suffer), anti-natalism, using renewable energy sources, being more resourceful, and there are probably other methods. So why go to other planets again? And back to terraforming, why not just terraform Earth, or clean-up Earth and make our realities more efficient?