locked threads
- Thread starter teppic
- Start date
- Status
http://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/a...ort/11181-forum-rules-updated-15-03-09-a.html
We dont allow religion here, so clearly, a thread entitled "most religious leaders are fools" is bound to be locked.
We dont allow religion here, so clearly, a thread entitled "most religious leaders are fools" is bound to be locked.
A 3month ban will end this.
Nebbiolo
Valuation: £108 million
Okay, well that's fair enough. It won't happen again
Although The Genealogy of Morals is a great read
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
Danny, ******* hell mate, that last one is a step too far:
Contributions must not:
a ) Contain any material which is defamatory of any person;
b ) Contain any material which is obscene, offensive, hateful or inflammatory;
c ) Promote sexually explicit material;
d ) Promote violence;
e ) Promote discrimination based on race, sex religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation, age or any other reason;
f ) Infringe any intellectual property right including but not limited to any copyright, database right, trade mark, patent, or design right (whether registered or not) of any other person;
g ) Be likely to deceive any person;
h ) Be made in breach of any legal duty owed to a third party, such as a contractual duty or a duty of confidence;
i ) Promote any illegal activity;
j ) Be threatening, abuse or invade another’s privacy, or cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety;
k ) Be likely to harass, upset, embarrass, alarm or annoy any other person;
l ) Be used to impersonate any person, or to misrepresent your identity or affiliation with any person;
m ) Give the impression that they emanate from us, if this is not the case; or
n ) Advocate, promote or assist any unlawful at such as (by way of example only) copyright infringement or computer misuse.
o) Break any applicable law in the UK and in any country from which they are posted.
p) Poor, profane or obscene language of any type is not welcome - even in jest.
q) Be religious or racial. There are other forums on the Internet suited for exactly this type of discussion, and ask that you please conduct such discussions on those forums.
r) *Update* We will allow threads of a political nature, though any sign of the thread escalating out of hand will likely result in the discussion being closed. The key to avoiding closed threads is to respect other opinions when presenting your own.
s) No discussion of Everton FC.
Contributions must not:
a ) Contain any material which is defamatory of any person;
b ) Contain any material which is obscene, offensive, hateful or inflammatory;
c ) Promote sexually explicit material;
d ) Promote violence;
e ) Promote discrimination based on race, sex religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation, age or any other reason;
f ) Infringe any intellectual property right including but not limited to any copyright, database right, trade mark, patent, or design right (whether registered or not) of any other person;
g ) Be likely to deceive any person;
h ) Be made in breach of any legal duty owed to a third party, such as a contractual duty or a duty of confidence;
i ) Promote any illegal activity;
j ) Be threatening, abuse or invade another’s privacy, or cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety;
k ) Be likely to harass, upset, embarrass, alarm or annoy any other person;
l ) Be used to impersonate any person, or to misrepresent your identity or affiliation with any person;
m ) Give the impression that they emanate from us, if this is not the case; or
n ) Advocate, promote or assist any unlawful at such as (by way of example only) copyright infringement or computer misuse.
o) Break any applicable law in the UK and in any country from which they are posted.
p) Poor, profane or obscene language of any type is not welcome - even in jest.
q) Be religious or racial. There are other forums on the Internet suited for exactly this type of discussion, and ask that you please conduct such discussions on those forums.
r) *Update* We will allow threads of a political nature, though any sign of the thread escalating out of hand will likely result in the discussion being closed. The key to avoiding closed threads is to respect other opinions when presenting your own.
s) No discussion of Everton FC.
Always turns into arguments though Day.
Nebbiolo
Valuation: £108 million
I can imagine that that is the case, which is why I understand it being binned..
It's a shame really because there are a lot of interesting areas surrounding arguments for or against the existence of a deity.
But there will always be one smart Alec (atheist or religious) that refuses to listen to evidence or argument and will always assert his assertions as being the truth.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
Seamus Colemole
Previously deathbyropeandglass
What exactly does racial mean in this context?
I can understand if someone posts soemthing racially abusive or discriminatory but whats a racial discussion?
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
I dont believe in all that myself. I'd like to - and as my Grandad used to say, there's no atheists on a ship that's just been torpedoed in the Atlantic Ocean.
I tell you one thing that struck me watching that wonderful documentary In the Shadow of the Moon - the one interviewing all the astronauts who landed on it in the Apollo missions - many of these no nonsense, science-based men came back with a spiritualism they never had before. Being out there must give you a perspective that transcends all the material nonsense clouding our everyday activity.
Nebbiolo
Valuation: £108 million
But that doesn't prove that everything isn't material, just that human imagination is great. At least it proves the former if we don't multiply our entities beyond necessity. Obviously that doesn't make what I said true, it's just logically more plausible.
This is turning into a religious debate.
Lock.
Lock.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
Metaphysics are beyond me. No wonder Danny's closing this ****e down.
To be fair, I dont think there's too much to debate, there's quite obviously no testing process for verifiability or otherwise and you pretty quickly get to the bottom line that the existence of a Creator or God(s) are down to an act of faith. You either have it or you dont. Understanding why we create them rather than the other way around is the point of interest....which I take it is what you mean by 'multiplying our entities'?
Nebbiolo
Valuation: £108 million
Metaphysics are beyond me. No wonder Danny's closing this ****e down.
To be fair, I dont think there's too much to debate, there's quite obviously no testing process for verifiability or otherwise and you pretty quickly get to the bottom line that the existence of a Creator or God(s) are down to an act of faith. You either have it or you dont. Understanding why we create them rather than the other way around is the point of interest....which I take it is what you mean by 'multiplying our entities'?
Not about religion, so hope this okay. I'll take the rap on the knuckles if it isn't, though.
Dave, I actually meant to say "latter" rather than "former".
It goes beyond faith in that you might say there are non-rational grounds for a belief in a deity, which is different to "irrational" grounds. Cold logic can't prove anything other than whether an argument is logically correct. But some people might look around and see the wonders of the world in all its beauty, consider all the wealth of human qualities that exist and ponder whether it just makes sense somehow to attribute them to a god. This is usually called "inference to the best explanation". But you're right, you can't test such a view and must to a degree rely on faith to maintain it.
The more logically minded tend to look more at Okham's Razor as a starting point for what we conceive as the "best explanation", which is: "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.". Basically: "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." In other words, if you have two competing theories, the simpler one is the better theory, merely in virtue of the fact that there are less leaps of faith required to make it fit in with the world as perceived by science.
So, when Bob Smith stands on the moon and is overwhelmed by it all, and suddenly declares himself spiritually aware, we might well think that this is a an issue that a psychologist would be better equipped to deal with than an a theist. The explanation of the former is quite simple: he was overwhelmed due to the experience of the vastness of the universe. The latter has to begin positing supernatural forces in order to satisfactorily provide an answer that he, and people like him, will find acceptable. In other words, he multiplies his entities beyond that which is (logically) necessary.
Obviously that's a very basic look at a very complex question.
Last edited:
- Status
Welcome
Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.
Shop
