Frank posted a self-portrait, and if I may make an indelicate suggestion...

Another thread on the Christian Trinity popped up. Surely this is theology?

Well, yes. However there is a SEP article on The Trinity

That the sudden influx of "hell" threads has been tidied up should be duly noted. Thank you, mods. Perhaps the balance can be restored.


Edit: On inspection it seems there has been a general clean-up, . Thank you to the moderators for intervening.

Edit: On inspection it seems there has been a general clean-up, . Thank you to the moderators for intervening. — Banno

Congratulations on your success in promoting bigotry here on the forum.

:up:

The simple point is we do not need two threads on the evils of hell at the same time.

I doubt that this thread had much to do with the recent edits, perhaps apart from drawing some attention. It's an eternal issue.

The simple point is we do not need two threads on the evils of hell at the same time. — Banno

That wasn't the point you were making. What you ask for is much broader. It bothers me that the moderators, who have such knee-jerk reactions to any hint of prejudice for any other vulnerable or protected group, don't provide that same consideration for religious beliefs.

Many of the posts in this thread show your argument for the hollow shell it is. It has nothing to do with philosophy. It's all about your personal antipathy to religion.

Meh. Take it up with the mods.

Meh. Take it up with the mods. — Banno

I'm using this thread to get my opinion across to them and others, just as you did. This whole thread was set up as a polemic to influence the moderators. I'm just using it to provide a counterbalancing opinion. Others on the thread have done the same. You set this up. We're just playing along.

It bothers me that the moderators, who have such knee-jerk reactions to any hint of prejudice for any other vulnerable or protected group, don't provide that same consideration for religious beliefs. — T Clark

You consider religious folk vulnerable and in need of protection?

You consider religious folk vulnerable and in need of protection? — praxis

Here on the forum certainly. In the world at large.... sometimes.

In the world at large.... sometimes. — T Clark

Protection from atheists or other “believers”? The latter is most typical, I think.

Incidentally, I flagged a post for the first time today. A blatantly racist post and my flagging had no effect, so apparently the mods are supportive of bigotry pluralism.

That mouthguard looks like the Enterprise from Start Trek...

Protection from atheists or other “believers”? The latter is most typical, I think. — praxis

Here on the forum, atheists. I haven't seen any sectarian prejudice here. My posts have been about posters here on the forum.

In the world, sectarian conflicts. What difference does it make? The principles are protection of religious freedom, freedom of association, freedom of speech, anti-discrimination, equal application of the rules, fairness.

I didn’t read any of the titles that Banno listed earlier and now they appear to be ghosted so I can’t make any judgment about fairness. Generally, it seems to me that “believers” have ample opportunity to express their “beliefs” on this forum. I know from personal experience that that is not the case in religious forums, which are far far less tolerant of other views, if they have any tolerance at all. So the difference is that religion seems to require intolerance and philosophy seems to require openness to various views, though all views will be looked at critically.

That mouthguard looks like the Enterprise from Start Trek... — Banno

It does, not that you mention it. I wouldn’t have pegged you for a Treky or sci-fi fan.

I wouldn’t have pegged you for a Treky or sci-fi fan. — praxis

Sci-fi, yes. Trek, a bit, but Babylon 5 and The Expanse are more my cup of tea. I like a decently long arc, something Trek never got right; and those ridiculous time travel episodes, including the most recent Picard series, are insulting.

Most are still there. Some were moved to the longe, others apparently removed.

Again, the list was intended as a reference for topical discussion. It is not a hit list. I've contributed to some of the threads listed. But it is easier to reply to a complex thread if you start by misrepresenting the OP.

And again, it is doubtful that this thread has much to do with the clean-up. The mods generally do a fair job, but occasionally they seem overwhelmed.

Double their pay, I say.

I have no problem with people being racist or bigots. The issue is when they act out such attitudes.

If you openly admit you are hostile to a whole group of people merely because they are theists I think you have issues.

If you openly admit you are hostile to a whole group of people merely because they are theists I think you have issues. — I like sushi

I agree! However, speaking for myself, I am not "hostile to a whole group of people merely because they are theists". My mother, for instance, is a theist and I'm not "hostile" to her. That goes for my brother, all but one of his children, the rest of my extended family and most of my oldest friends. I am, however, "hostile" to individuals when they are vapid or disingenuous or pompous assholes whether or not they are theists. Most atheists just ignore, even humor, theists without any (unprovoked) "hostility"; they simply take theists to task for the dubious claims which they often make in the name of their god/s, especially on a site like TPF that's dedicated to reasonable discussion and argument.

If you in direct opposition to theism then it follows that you are pretty much opposed to theists, right?

I guess there is a middle ground though. Maybe I jumped the gun. Staunch anti-theists are probably more what bother me and it is those who are bigoted.

Being an atheist and and partly anti-theistic is not the same as being a bigot. My mistake. In terms of education I am very much opposed to religious teaching in schools that undermine and contradict science; within reason. Example like the age of the Earth and such.

A reasonable discussion can be had within the context of religious texts. I see no real problem in debating such and think it is probably one of the best ways to open more severe religious types to a new set of tools with which to question and explore their beliefs.

Preachers here will be banned I expect as well as those unwilling/unable to know who and how to respond enter discourse with. If two people are having a good discussion about the morality of certain religious texts based on the premise that god is all knowing and right, then it is pretty obnoxious if someone else jumps in to throw insults and sully the discussion being had.

I have had discussions about definitions of god in the hundreds, online and off, because it is a personal interest of mine. The majority of religious folk I have engaged with are more than reasonable. There are some that simply don’t know how to listen though.

On this forum a think a cool off period would be better than an outright permanent ban (in most cases). That is for owner of the forum to decide though. I have only ever seen a handful of long term posters deserving of a permanent ban. Others just need a breather for a couple of weeks.

One aspect of the debate on forum quality that might be addressed is the preponderance of low quality thread of a theological bent. — Banno

I think this is unavoidable since its an intrinsic feature of all intellectual attempts founded on assumed supernatural artifacts.
A bigger and far more important issue is our inability to demarcate Philosophy from theology and supernatural ideologies in general.

These threads take scripture or revelation as a starting point for discussion; theology, not philosophy. — Banno

-"

hese threads take scripture or revelation as a starting point for discussion; theology, not philosophy. — Banno

Correct, Philosophy needs to use established epistemology as a starting point not faith based assumptions.

God is not a suitable tool for philosophical explanation because god is omnipotent and omniscient. Any question is given a sufficient reply by blaming god. Hence, philosophical discussion stops at god. Of corse, that does not imply that god is the correct answer. — Banno

All philosophical explanations should stop before entering any supernatural assumption.

Hence a good rule of thumb is that philosophers should were possible avoid using god. And generally speaking this rule is followed; it is not common, for example, to explain the differences between machine poetry and human poetry by using god, or the deity as an excuse for racism; and doing so would almost certainly result in a ban for low post quality — Banno

I agree.

All philosophical explanations should stop before entering any supernatural assumption. — Nickolasgaspar

This is clearly a biased statement.. Whenever evidence and logic indicate the reality of that which is beyond the natural, then the appropriate conclusion is the supernatural. To deny the reality of what the evidence and logic lead you toward, because it's contrary to what you already believe, is simple prejudice.

-"This is clearly a biased statement"
-the problem is with the nature of philosophy not with my statement describing the incompatible nature of supernatural assumptions.

Whenever evidence and logic indicate the reality of that which is beyond the natural, then the appropriate conclusion is the supernatural. — Metaphysician Undercover

- That is more of an argument from ignorance fallacy.
We don't have evidence indicating that something lies beyond the natural or point to causal role in the world.

We either have evidence for a natural mechanism or have zero evidence for a natural mechanism. This is the true dichotomy.
your conclusion is based on a false dichotomy. In order for the supernatural to be part the discussion, you will first need to demonstrating the existence of the supernatural.
Supernatural appears to be of a label that we stick on things we ignore.
Logic can not accept explanations that are based on unsound arguments. Any premise need to be verified and no premise for the supernatural has this luxury.
Logic dictates that you need to have evidence for your claim( the supernatural). The lack of evidence for an other claim doesn't automatically render yours the answer.

Again Philosophy, in order to be successful and true to its goal (produce wise claims) it needs to be founded on knowledge. The supernatural has zero objective demonstrations so by definition it can not be addressed by Philosophy.

↪180 Proof If you in direct opposition to theism then it follows that you are pretty much opposed to theists, right? — I like sushi

No that does not follow. :roll:

Remember, people are often blind to their own bigotry, clothed in self righteousness as they are.

I'm not saying you're a bigot, but I know what Tclark was talking about. The psyche gravitates toward the acceptable vent for hatred and frustration and disappointment. It takes what it can get.

And the OP stinks of it. It's disgusting.

It follows if you are completely against any theistic believes. I admitted it is a matter of drawing the line somewhere.

Upon further consideration I clearly stated that not all people calling themselves ‘anti-theistic’ are necessarily against theists (in every aspect). There is certainly a fine line between claiming you are against someone’s beliefs and claiming you are against someone.

As I said before, in terms of education, I am ‘anti-theist’ I suppose. That is a very specific area though and one which prompted a whole movement in the US under the guise of ‘atheism’.

I am against religious ideals imposing on my, and other people’s, choices. Other than that people can do as they please and believe what they want.

If you replace the above with Nazis and Nazism, you might see what I meant more clearly? It would be silly to state that I am against Nazism but not Nazis. The difference (I admit again) is that ‘theist’ is much more broader than ‘nazi’ (which is more or less like a particular set of ideas/beliefs), and although more dubious political movements/ideologies have a lot in common with religious traditions they are not the same animal.

Sci-fi, yes. Trek, a bit, but Babylon 5 and The Expanse are more my cup of tea. I like a decently long arc, something Trek never got right; and those ridiculous time travel episodes, including the most recent Picard series, are insulting. — Banno

Yeah I’m a huge nerd too.

The psyche gravitates toward the acceptable vent for hatred and frustration and disappointment. — frank

Would you care to elaborate on this, Dr. Freud?

I didn’t read any of the titles that Banno listed earlier and now they appear to be ghosted so I can’t make any judgment about fairness. — praxis

Here's a link to the list:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/680631

On in particular got my hackles up - "The eternal soul (Vitalism): was Darwin wrong?" It is not primarily a religious thread and I found it really useful.

Generally, it seems to me that “believers” have ample opportunity to express their “beliefs” on this forum. — praxis

I think this is true and I'd like to see it stay that way. My primary complaint is about this thread. There are other members who express even stronger feelings about religious posts than Banno does, but the moderators have been reasonably open.