Page 1 of 11 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 203

Thread: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

  1. #1
    Menelik_I's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Republic of Angola, Permitte divis cetera.
    Posts
    10,081

    Default Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

    I am getting myself this new book ''The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions'' by David Berlinski, which ask the very interesting question of why Scientists think they are capable to prove that god exists or not, because most of modern atheist rest on scientific proofs that divinity don't exist. His basic argument is nothing qualifies Physicists to give an answer on the question of whether divinity exists or not, that it is a question for philosophy, and that the supposed smoking hot proofs, such as evolution and the big bang, are not as strong as atheists think they are, o or lemming terms that they are over their head and only nails because they had hammer from what I have seen from the interview below.

    As for myself, I shall take vow of silence on the subject until I finish reading the book, since the interview is not enough to make an informed argument for or against. It is certainly something interesting for those who were ever involved in this debate to consider if they were actually discussing the right thing.

    Quote from the interview :

    Berlinski asserts that "a great many men and women have a dull, hurt, angry sense of being oppressed by the sciences. They are frustrated by endless scientific boasting. They suspect that ... the scientific community holds them in contempt. They are right to feel this way." With Darwin's theory of evolution as a point of departure, he takes scientists to task for their antireligious assumptions and explores the conflict between the scientific community and those with firmly held religious beliefs.
    I leave you the following questions:

    - Can science proof that divinity don't exist ?
    - Is Atheism suffering from Scientific Pretensions ?



    PS: This is not a does god exists or not thread.
    « Le courage est toujours quelque chose de saint, un jugement divin entre deux idées. Défendre notre cause de plus en plus vigoureusement est conforme à la nature humaine. Notre suprême raison d’être est donc de lutter ; on ne possède vraiment que ce qu’on acquiert en combattant. »Ernst Jünger
    La Guerre notre Mère (Der Kampf als inneres Erlebnis), 1922, trad. Jean Dahel, éditions Albin Michel, 1934

  2. #2

    Default Re: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

    Since when scientists seek to prove the existence of deity(s)? Atheists have proof that Gods do not exist? Damn, how much did I miss when I stop visiting those atheist camps? Also, theory of evolution is weak? Hah, in your dream.
    KNOWN FACTS: Earth rotates around the sun, water freeze at 273 Ko, EA is absolutely evil.

  3. #3
    Tankbuster's Avatar Analogy Nazi
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    5,228

    Default Re: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

    Quote Originally Posted by Menelik_I View Post
    I am getting myself this new book ''The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions'' by David Berlinski, which ask the very interesting question of why Scientists think they are capable to prove that god exists or not, because most of modern atheist rest on scientific proofs that divinity don't exist.
    No they don't, but good to see that Berlinski is going to embarass himself with pitiful crap again.

    Interesting how he's going to attack atheism, by the way, being -from where we sit- an atheist. It's just going to be another exercise in strawmanning the position of your average atheist.
    His basic argument is nothing qualifies Physicists to give an answer on the question of whether divinity exists or not, that it is a question for philosophy, and that the supposed smoking hot proofs, such as evolution and the big bang, are not as strong as atheists think they are, o or lemming terms that they are over their head and only nails because they had hammer from what I have seen from the interview below.
    Since nobody has claimed this that they are proofs in any way, I hope it's going to be a short book.
    - Can science proof that divinity don't exist ?
    No and I know only one scientist who would claim otherwise.
    - Is Atheism suffering from Scientific Pretensions ?
    It's hard to speak about atheism as a single entity, as it would be like asking if theists suffer from scientific pretenses. Some theists certainly do, like the idiots at the Discovery Institute or Answers in Genesis, but not all of them.
    Ditto for atheists, I think: some atheists overstate the cases against religion, but I think most of the scientific arguments are relatively sound. It's the philosophical and especially historical unsophistication of the major spokespersons that are the bigger problem.
    The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath
    --- Mark 2:27

    Atheism is simply a way of clearing the space for better conservations.
    --- Sam Harris

  4. #4
    Menelik_I's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Republic of Angola, Permitte divis cetera.
    Posts
    10,081

    Default Re: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

    Quote Originally Posted by Sumonious View Post
    Since when scientists seek to prove the existence of deity(s)? Atheists have proof that Gods do not exist?
    The Dawkins and Co use their scientific credentials to further their claim that deity doesn't exists.




    Quote Originally Posted by Sumonious View Post
    Also, theory of evolution is weak? Hah, in your dream.
    It is a weak proof that deity doesn't exist (in philosophical-metaphysical debate), no matter the scientific merits of the theory in itself. Science is simply not qualified to answer this question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    Interesting how he's going to attack atheism, by the way, being -from where we sit- an atheist. It's just going to be another exercise in strawmanning the position of your average atheist.
    Why can't He say that other atheist are over playing their hands and going over their head ? Dude is simply saying that they are not qualified.
    Last edited by Menelik_I; May 05, 2012 at 07:39 AM.
    « Le courage est toujours quelque chose de saint, un jugement divin entre deux idées. Défendre notre cause de plus en plus vigoureusement est conforme à la nature humaine. Notre suprême raison d’être est donc de lutter ; on ne possède vraiment que ce qu’on acquiert en combattant. »Ernst Jünger
    La Guerre notre Mère (Der Kampf als inneres Erlebnis), 1922, trad. Jean Dahel, éditions Albin Michel, 1934

  5. #5
    Tankbuster's Avatar Analogy Nazi
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    5,228

    Default Re: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

    Quote Originally Posted by Menelik_I View Post
    The Dawkins and Co use their scientific credentials to further their claim that deity doesn't exists.
    You realise that the video you just linked to has Dawkins stating explicitly that he doesn't claim that God necessarily doesn't exist, rendering Berlinski's alleged criticism completely void?
    It is a weak proof that deity doesn't exist (in philosophical-metaphysical debate), no matter the scientific merits of the theory in itself. Science is simply not qualified to answer this question.
    Nobody claims that it is.

    You should really research the opposing position instead of simply assuming it.
    The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath
    --- Mark 2:27

    Atheism is simply a way of clearing the space for better conservations.
    --- Sam Harris

  6. #6
    Menelik_I's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Republic of Angola, Permitte divis cetera.
    Posts
    10,081

    Default Re: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    You realise that the video you just linked to has Dawkins stating explicitly that he doesn't claim that God necessarily doesn't exist, rendering Berlinski's alleged criticism completely void?
    ''I don't think that there is a positive evidence that god exist'' Dawkins in the video.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tankbuster View Post
    Nobody claims that it is. You should really research the opposing position instead of simply assuming it.
    I am pretty sure they do.
    « Le courage est toujours quelque chose de saint, un jugement divin entre deux idées. Défendre notre cause de plus en plus vigoureusement est conforme à la nature humaine. Notre suprême raison d’être est donc de lutter ; on ne possède vraiment que ce qu’on acquiert en combattant. »Ernst Jünger
    La Guerre notre Mère (Der Kampf als inneres Erlebnis), 1922, trad. Jean Dahel, éditions Albin Michel, 1934

  7. #7
    Tankbuster's Avatar Analogy Nazi
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    5,228

    Default Re: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

    Quote Originally Posted by Menelik_I View Post
    ''I don't think that there is a positive evidence that god exist'' Dawkins in the video.
    Yes and? Even Berlinski would have to agree with that statement, otherwise he'd have to be a theist.

    How does this equate to the position that we can scientifically prove that God does not exist? Dawkins is explicitly not doing that, and has pointed that out countless times.
    The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath
    --- Mark 2:27

    Atheism is simply a way of clearing the space for better conservations.
    --- Sam Harris

  8. #8

    Default Re: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

    Quote Originally Posted by Menelik_I View Post
    ''I don't think that there is a positive evidence that god exist'' Dawkins in the video.
    He's perfectly correct. There is no positive evidence that God exists. There's also no positive evidence that God doesn't exist. Nobody can prove anything, because nobody, not scientists nor philosophers or even clergymen have the necessary qualifications or faculties to comprehend what would constitute as "positive evidence" on the God question.


    Quote Originally Posted by Menelik_I View Post
    I am pretty sure they do.
    The people who claim that evolution or the big bang are solid pieces of evidence that there is no God are the same as people who claim God created AIDS to kill homosexuals. They're an embarrassment to their belief and should be struck quite violently. There's a reason they're called "theories"
    Last edited by Lazarus; May 05, 2012 at 08:05 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Brian de Bois-Guilbert View Post
    the Church has only improved mankind in history

    For this there are words, but none that abide by the ToS.

  9. #9
    Menelik_I's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Republic of Angola, Permitte divis cetera.
    Posts
    10,081

    Default Re: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

    Quote Originally Posted by Lazarus View Post
    He's perfectly correct. There is no positive evidence that God exists. There's also no positive evidence that God doesn't exist. Nobody can prove anything, because nobody, not scientists nor philosophers or even clergymen have the necessary qualifications or faculties to comprehend what would constitute as "positive evidence" on the God question.
    I won't answer this because I need to read the book to see Berlinski in that, I have another response in my mind from another philosopher and that would be off topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lazarus View Post
    The people who claim that evolution or the big bang are solid pieces of evidence that there is no God are the same as people who claim God created AIDS to kill homosexuals. They're an embarrassment to their belief and should be struck quite violently. There's a reason they're called "theories"
    Are you sure there isn't a typo there ? Because I fail to see how the people who say that there is no god are saying that god is killing gays.

    These theory are used as scientific support to atheism and to make metaphysical points, I don't know why you are denying it.
    « Le courage est toujours quelque chose de saint, un jugement divin entre deux idées. Défendre notre cause de plus en plus vigoureusement est conforme à la nature humaine. Notre suprême raison d’être est donc de lutter ; on ne possède vraiment que ce qu’on acquiert en combattant. »Ernst Jünger
    La Guerre notre Mère (Der Kampf als inneres Erlebnis), 1922, trad. Jean Dahel, éditions Albin Michel, 1934

  10. #10

    Default Re: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

    Quote Originally Posted by Menelik_I View Post
    The Dawkins and Co use their scientific credentials to further their claim that deity doesn't exists.
    No, particularly Dawkins says that there is no proof of a deity and that the existence of one explains nothing and creates far more questions than answers for those concepts we do have explanations for.





    It is a weak proof that deity doesn't exist (in philosophical-metaphysical debate), no matter the scientific merits of the theory in itself. Science is simply not qualified to answer this question.
    It can answer that no observation thus far has shown any indication of the concept of God being necessary to explain anything and most concepts we thought we needed God for, just were far smarter natural processes than our forefathers could understand.

    More importantly however is that we are not discussing some kind of God, but "religious Gods" aka the God of Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc. What is ascribed to these kinds of Gods is entirely outside understood and known reality.

    Science can tell you that any God that might exist, must be far smarter, far more powerful and far more alien than any God proposed by any world religion as one fatal flaw in my book is that they use anthropomorphic ideas of a supreme being (e.g. God is absolutely benevolent in a human sense of the word) and assume mankind is its special pet which one hell of an assumption in a universe with 70 sextillion or more stars and us living on dirt spec orbiting a particularly unremarkable one.


    Maybe Atheism should specify: There is no basis for any God as proposed by any human because none of those suggestions has ever had any provable tie ins with reality.

    There might be a God but none can claim "He told us so" because the likelihood of this supreme being being compatible with any religion would be virtually zero and because there is no rational basis on which one could have come to the conclusion that there would be a supreme being of some kind based on real world observation at this time or before.
    Christianity proposes not just some God but a very specific Christian one. As does Islam, as do Hindus with their many gods, etc. Thus it is not enough that there might be some kind of God for it being of any relevance to any believers.

    Such a God would have to be in accordance of the religious doctrine it is part of.

    Given the magnitude and complexity of the universe I consider this assumption nearly blasphemic. Luckily I do not believe there needs to be something remotely like a God or that it would have any relevance to our existance.
    "Sebaceans once had a god called Djancaz-Bru. Six worlds prayed to her. They built her temples, conquered planets. And yet one day she rose up and destroyed all six worlds. And when the last warrior was dying, he said, 'We gave you everything, why did you destroy us?' And she looked down upon him and she whispered, 'Because I can.' "
    Mangalore Design

  11. #11

    Default Re: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

    Quote Originally Posted by Menelik_I View Post
    Are you sure there isn't a typo there ? Because I fail to see how the people who say that there is no god are saying that god is killing gays.
    Ha ha, no, you misunderstand my meaning. I agree, there are Atheists out there who say "Big Bang, Evolution. Therefore, God doesn't exist." Those Atheists are wrong and they make decent Atheists everywhere look stupid. Just like the "God kills gays" people are wrong and make decent Theists everywhere look stupid. They're the loud and, often quite dense oddballs of their respective belief system

    It was meant to be funny >.>
    Last edited by Lazarus; May 05, 2012 at 08:28 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Brian de Bois-Guilbert View Post
    the Church has only improved mankind in history

    For this there are words, but none that abide by the ToS.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

    This is ridiculous. Science can't and won't prove or disprove the existence of gods or other supernatural concepts. Quite simply gods are irrelevant to science.
    If you ever happen upon someone using science to find evidence for or against the supernatural, you'll know that either he's wrong from the get-go, or you didn't understand what he's doing or saying.

    Before using the usual ignorant canard of "it's just a theory", keep in mind that the definition of a "scientific theory" is quite different from "a theory" as used in vernacular language. A scientific theory is an hypothesis that is backed up by experiments and observations; it's the closest thing you'll ever get to "proved" in science. Scientific theories can never be proved (even if certain beyond reasonable doubt, like evolution); they can only be disproved.

    This is all completely unrelated to atheists really.
    It's just a butthurt fanatic minority trying to tie atheism to science whenever the later produces results that doesn't support their religious views.
    “a poor model can be saved by a great texture, but a bad texture will ruin even the most detailed model. - James O'Donnell, Forgotten Hope mod artist

  13. #13
    Himster's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Dublin, The Peoples Republic of Ireland
    Posts
    9,838

    Default Re: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

    That's not science, it's just someone biased against atheists trying to read his own preconceptions into what's being said.

    Science is science, mythology is mythology, they're seperate.

    ''I don't think that there is a positive evidence that god exist'' Dawkins in the video.


    And? Did he say that god doesn't exist, or did he give is honest opinion?

    Yes there are atheist douches who shout: big-bang+evolution=no god, in much the same way there are theists who bring "god hates gays" signs to funerals of young men who died of AIDS, the loudest proponents of any ideology are usually the worst of them.
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.
    -Betrand Russell

  14. #14
    Lord of Lost Socks's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    3,467

    Default Re: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

    I think it's a pretty strong statement that science can never answer the question of god's existence. The only thing we can say about that is that science can't answer the question today. <------------- Weak Agnosticism

    Atheists use science to disprove ridiculous religious claims as described in respective holy texts, not whether Gods exists. Naturally disproving all religions and no one believes in god anymore would have no impact on whether God exists or not. It's not a democracy, it's a matter of likelyhood. The more you can explain stuff by natural means, the less of a niche exists for God. Science won't disprove God until science comes up with the Theory of Everything. And even then people might say that god exists, he just doesn't interact with the physical world.

    “The human eye is a wonderful device. With a little effort, it can fail to see even the most glaring injustice.”

  15. #15
    Menelik_I's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Republic of Angola, Permitte divis cetera.
    Posts
    10,081

    Default Re: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

    Quote Originally Posted by Mangalore View Post
    No, particularly Dawkins says that there is no proof of a deity and that the existence of one explains nothing and creates far more questions than answers for those concepts we do have explanations for.
    The proof Dawkins don't see is Scientific , so He is still under atheist pretension. The Point is that is studies in Physics don't qualify him to even say that there is proof or not, thats beyond him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lazarus View Post
    Ha ha, no, you misunderstand my meaning. I agree, there are Atheists out there who say "Big Bang, Evolution. Therefore, God doesn't exist." Those Atheists are wrong and they make decent Atheists everywhere look stupid. Just like the "God kills gays" people are wrong and make decent Theists everywhere look stupid. They're the loud and, often quite dense oddballs of their respective belief system

    It was meant to be funny >.>
    Sarc fail

    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    And? Did he say that god doesn't exist, or did he give is honest opinion?
    The point is that He can't even have an opinion, nothing in his condition of physicist enable to give this opinion.

    The whole point is that Dawkins saying that ''there is no proof'' is in itself a pretension.
    « Le courage est toujours quelque chose de saint, un jugement divin entre deux idées. Défendre notre cause de plus en plus vigoureusement est conforme à la nature humaine. Notre suprême raison d’être est donc de lutter ; on ne possède vraiment que ce qu’on acquiert en combattant. »Ernst Jünger
    La Guerre notre Mère (Der Kampf als inneres Erlebnis), 1922, trad. Jean Dahel, éditions Albin Michel, 1934

  16. #16
    Claudius Gothicus's Avatar Petit Burgués
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Argentina
    Posts
    8,544

    Default Re: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

    The Correlation between science and atheism is more coincidental than consequential. More than often, people who throw themselves into the scientific sphere of life(investigators, professors and theoreticians) are already holding post-religious views of deity when they insert themselves into the process of creating knowledge and discovering reality.

    He whose lust for knowledge follows a scientific path is often conscious of the critical nature of it... and therefore doesn't fall for theistic naivety as easily as the general subject. For the scientific investigators, the scientists explanations are within our grasp, and therefore, doesn't need god for them.

    In short, one become dubious about the nature of religion before one becomes a scientific.
    Last edited by Claudius Gothicus; May 05, 2012 at 02:05 PM.

    Under the Patronage of
    Maximinus Thrax

  17. #17
    MathiasOfAthens's Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Stockholm, Sverige
    Posts
    22,877

    Default Re: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

    Quote Originally Posted by Sumonious View Post
    Since when scientists seek to prove the existence of deity(s)? Atheists have proof that Gods do not exist? Damn, how much did I miss when I stop visiting those atheist camps? Also, theory of evolution is weak? Hah, in your dream.
    Exactly, Since in has Science sought to PROVE the existence of a deity? Its not possible prove a deity DOES NOT exist. The burden of proof is on the faithful. They must prove God exists. But of course they dont because its faith that they believe in something unprovable with little evidence for except some quotes in a book or several books.


    And when has Atheism or the absence of a belief in gods or a god rested entirely or partly on scientific attempts to prove a make believe god?

    Atheism mostly uses scientific discoveries like Genetics, DNA, fossils, radiocarbon and uranium dating and the theory of evolution to back up the absence of a god. Considering all those things can call to anything in the Bible it makes you wonder if the Bible can be so wrong so many times why do people still believe it? Oh thats right, I got it, its Faith... the opposite of reason. Where you believe something without proof and the advocates of faith refer to things that cannot be determined through science and facts as requiring faith? Which makes no sense and explains why there is no reason within religion.

  18. #18
    Menelik_I's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Republic of Angola, Permitte divis cetera.
    Posts
    10,081

    Default Re: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

    Quote Originally Posted by Claudius Gothicus View Post
    The Correlation between science and atheism is more coincidental than consequential. More than often, people who throw themselves into the scientific sphere of life(investigators, professors and theoreticians) are already holding post-religious views of deity when they insert themselves into the process of creating knowledge and discovering reality.
    What you are talking about is self selection, and it is not what is being told talk about (off topic).

    The thread is about the scientific delusion of people like Dawkins, because if His position seems neutral, it still claims that there is such a scientific a thing as a scientific proof to god, the point is that His physics don't qualify him to voice opinion on the subject.
    « Le courage est toujours quelque chose de saint, un jugement divin entre deux idées. Défendre notre cause de plus en plus vigoureusement est conforme à la nature humaine. Notre suprême raison d’être est donc de lutter ; on ne possède vraiment que ce qu’on acquiert en combattant. »Ernst Jünger
    La Guerre notre Mère (Der Kampf als inneres Erlebnis), 1922, trad. Jean Dahel, éditions Albin Michel, 1934

  19. #19
    MathiasOfAthens's Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Stockholm, Sverige
    Posts
    22,877

    Default Re: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

    What scientific delusion of Dawkins? How exactly is Dawkins delusional for accepting Evolution over the biblical explanation of magic and poofing people into existence to explain differing skin colours and other characteristics. Or is Dawkins delusional for accepting the nonbiblical account of earth and the existence of dinosaurs that are not mentioned in the bible that claims to explain how earth was created... through god poofing it into existence.

  20. #20
    Menelik_I's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Republic of Angola, Permitte divis cetera.
    Posts
    10,081

    Default Re: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

    Quote Originally Posted by MathiasOfAthens View Post
    What scientific delusion of Dawkins?
    Is delusion is to expect Scientific proof for the existence of god. Let me ask a question : Do you think an Engineer Degree qualify him to do Gynecologist duties ?

    Not only is it not his field, but His field, Physics, cannot answer the god question.

    Quote Originally Posted by MathiasOfAthens View Post
    How exactly is Dawkins delusional for accepting Evolution over the biblical explanation of magic and poofing people into existence to explain differing skin colours and other characteristics. Or is Dawkins delusional for accepting the nonbiblical account of earth and the existence of dinosaurs that are not mentioned in the bible that claims to explain how earth was created... through god poofing it into existence.
    Religion and science trait of two different set of question and this where the confusion spring, so you cannot say that there is a choice between believing in evolution and divine creation.

    Do you know why there are no mentions of dinosaurs in the Bible ? For the same reason there are no cocaine formulas into it, ie it is not part of the subject of human salvation.

    Dawkin is entitled to his opinion as Citizen C.Q Public, not as Physicist, this is a subject for philosophers and theologians.

    Talking about Creation and Dinosaurs, I had a teacher who was a Theologian some 5 years ago, probably among the top 5 in the country, and is point was that many people criticize the bible without even knowing what it is about ,and He said that to a Christian student who got offended because the Priest told him that Adam and Eva did not exist.
    « Le courage est toujours quelque chose de saint, un jugement divin entre deux idées. Défendre notre cause de plus en plus vigoureusement est conforme à la nature humaine. Notre suprême raison d’être est donc de lutter ; on ne possède vraiment que ce qu’on acquiert en combattant. »Ernst Jünger
    La Guerre notre Mère (Der Kampf als inneres Erlebnis), 1922, trad. Jean Dahel, éditions Albin Michel, 1934

Page 1 of 11 12345678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •