Simple Mod Request.
RE: Simple Mod Request.
i dont think this is a place to debate, Christianity or Religion and a game is not a place to intentionally insult another persons belief, relationship, or point of view. its not a place for Theist and Atheist to go and be insulted or have shouting matches our debates with one another. A game is a place of escape from those things that stress us most. it is no longer a place of escape if that is taken away. I can debate a person at a appropriate place and have done so, but who wants to ruin something good for the sake of Debate and argument? doesn't that kill the idea of escape?
-
Guest
RE: Simple Mod Request.
I feel that what PS66 said is not completely in contrast with what you have just wrote. "Real" religions are often a threat to human relationaships, they often cause divisions instead of communion (this is more frequent in a multicultural society, like our, than in a mono cultural one, in which the same shared religion serves as a "social glue"). It's not only an opinion, but a series of historical documented facts. (BTW, one cannot deny that religions have done some good to the progress of society. At least, they often consist in a series of moral rules that can be easily undestood or enforced to everyone. Sometimes there are problems with updates and service packs... but that's another story 
) IMO, that's not the case of the FSM reference, as FSM wasn't meant to mock christianity, but the idea that inteligent design could be science (which doesn't mean that it couldn't be true, but only that it's an hypotesis that doesn't have the the properties required to be considered scientific. ...even psycoanalysis is considered pseudo-science, but that doesn't imply that it doesn't works... you could ask the same to every philosopher of science, and obtain the same answer) and some other logical fallacies (just see the number of pirates / global warming correlation graphs as a parody of a typical fallacy in which the correlation between two variables, doesn't imply causality). It's a reaction to what happened in the education programs of some countries. A similar example is the famous Bertrand Russell's Teapot, which should not be taken as an insult to religions, but a demonstration of the logical fallacy called "argument from ignorance" (with "ignorance" not as an insult but as "missing the knowledge of a fact") and the importance of the burden of proof. Sometimes, these logical fallacies are used to argumentate some religious beliefs, but the Teapot's analogy is not aimed at truth of religions themselfs, but to the incorrect use of logic when trying to demonstrare the truth of a belief. (Anyway, one could affirm that you don't need logic or proofs to believe, and I'm ok with this... just because, by saying so, you are "playing a different game", by completely changing some of the fundamental premises of the discussion) Similarly, the FSM analogy is not aimed at religions themselfs, but to an incorrect idea of science that many intelligent-design advocates have. I understand that even after demonstrating that FSM is not meant as an insult, one could feel being insulted anyway... However, I thought that it was worth trying. (...and I hope that all that I wrote was clear, since I'm not speaking in my own language... as you have probably noted 
)
) IMO, that's not the case of the FSM reference, as FSM wasn't meant to mock christianity, but the idea that inteligent design could be science (which doesn't mean that it couldn't be true, but only that it's an hypotesis that doesn't have the the properties required to be considered scientific. ...even psycoanalysis is considered pseudo-science, but that doesn't imply that it doesn't works... you could ask the same to every philosopher of science, and obtain the same answer) and some other logical fallacies (just see the number of pirates / global warming correlation graphs as a parody of a typical fallacy in which the correlation between two variables, doesn't imply causality). It's a reaction to what happened in the education programs of some countries. A similar example is the famous Bertrand Russell's Teapot, which should not be taken as an insult to religions, but a demonstration of the logical fallacy called "argument from ignorance" (with "ignorance" not as an insult but as "missing the knowledge of a fact") and the importance of the burden of proof. Sometimes, these logical fallacies are used to argumentate some religious beliefs, but the Teapot's analogy is not aimed at truth of religions themselfs, but to the incorrect use of logic when trying to demonstrare the truth of a belief. (Anyway, one could affirm that you don't need logic or proofs to believe, and I'm ok with this... just because, by saying so, you are "playing a different game", by completely changing some of the fundamental premises of the discussion) Similarly, the FSM analogy is not aimed at religions themselfs, but to an incorrect idea of science that many intelligent-design advocates have. I understand that even after demonstrating that FSM is not meant as an insult, one could feel being insulted anyway... However, I thought that it was worth trying. (...and I hope that all that I wrote was clear, since I'm not speaking in my own language... as you have probably noted )