Is this one of those "last post wins" things?

Oh dear, not only do you not like my threads it doesn't seem like you think much of me either.

What's next? You don't like my country?

You do take things so personally.

It's just that I don't see you post here are contributions to the topic. I'm giving you enough rope. Do with it as you will.

You do take things so personally. — Banno

I already know that.

Bye.

The best that you might hope for would be a religion that attempted to base itself on science, which to me would seem to be no more than wishful thinking — Banno

Raëlism teaches that an extraterrestrial species known as the Elohim created humanity using their advanced technology. An atheistic religion, it believes that the Elohim have historically been mistaken for gods. It holds that throughout history the Elohim have created forty Elohim/human hybrids who have served as prophets preparing humanity for news about their ultimate origins. Among those listed as prophets are The Buddha, Jesus of Nazareth, and Muhammad, with Raël himself being the fortieth and final prophet. Raëlists believe that since the Hiroshima bomb of 1945, humanity has entered an Age of Apocalypse in which it is threatening itself with nuclear annihilation. It argues that humanity must find a way of harnessing new scientific and technological development for peaceful ends, and that once this has been achieved the Elohim shall return to Earth to share their technology with humanity and usher in a utopia. To this end, the Raëlians have been committed to building an embassy for the Elohim, incorporating a landing pad for the latter's spaceship. Raëlians promote a liberal ethical system with a strong emphasis on sexual experimentation, engage in daily meditation, and hope for physical immortality through human cloning. — Wikipedia on Raëlism

According to this story, 75 million years ago Xenu brought billions of people to Earth in spacecraft resembling Douglas DC-8 airliners, stacked them around volcanoes and detonated hydrogen bombs in the volcanoes. The thetans then clustered together, stuck to the bodies of the living, and continue to do this today. Scientologists at advanced levels place considerable emphasis on isolating body thetans and neutralizing their ill effects. — Wikipedia on Scientology

Wishful thinking ...or just making shite up. :up:

Banno
8.2k
↪Frank Apisa I've re-read this with eyes that are less wearied, but still think it muddled.

Yes, i was thinking of omnipotent deities when I wrote the OP. But I don't see how Thor or The God Of Small Things would be useful as the answer to a philosophical conundrum.


Edit: actually, the God of Small Things might be an exception... — Banno

Okay, we may be at an impasse, Banno.

Perhaps it is that I do not accurately understand what you were trying to convey with the expression, “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.”

My position, which is that of an agnostic, is that a GOD or gods may exist. If so, that GOD or those gods may, indeed, impact on anything or everything.

Your position, it seemed to me, tended to eliminate the prospect of any gods (merely to eliminate them from consideration of "philosophical" considerations…which I considered an appropriate position to dispute.

Either I was wrong in how I was taking your remarks…or in some other way misunderstanding what you are suggesting with that thesis.

I’ll just follow along for a bit to see where this goes…and if my initial assumptions prove to be wrong, I’ll leave things be.

I am agnostic as well. The point I was making is methodological, in that insofar as god answered every question god is sufficient for us to divest ourselves of further enquiry.

The best theistic reply is perhaps the Thomist position. But most of the Christians hereabouts appear to be Protestant.

Just by way of a bump for this thread, has any one else noticed that the air seems clearer recently?

If you mean the quality of the forum, it has seemed both busier and less hostile in the parts that I’ve interacted with the past few days.

Cool. I'm happy to take the credit.

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

They are back.

They keep trying to use premise structures to avoid talking like men

They are back. — Banno

Yeah, what we have going on here is noble posturing to free speech, which is already regulated in many cases through the lounge. It's beyond backward, none of the administrators or moderators of this forum are Christians, would they allow Nazis to post on here if they made abstract arguments? Because this can be done in the form of Carl Schmitt. What about abstract threads on Unicorns of Fairies? Because this can be done with Plantinga's arguments (he said Zeus was an acceptable deity for his position). I feel I have taken quite a bit of opposition for merely stating the obvious, and my position is not extreme. I don't have a problem with philosophical theology, let's discuss Whitehead or Spinoza, I'm talking about organized religion, specifically the cult of Jesus. This presumption of unconditional respect for religious error is unfounded.

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

They are back - again.

I've argued elsewhere against over-reliance on commencing with definition. it's often better to allow the definition to grow alongside the conversation. — Banno

One of the annoying features of god-talk is defining god (particularly the Abrahamic God) at the start, then getting tangled up in the barbed wire resulting from the definition, like "can an all-powerful god create a weight too heavy for him to lift?" Or "Is a god who [creates] [allows] evil to exist evil?"

Or, "Can an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omni-et cetera god do or not do such and such?" Hmmmm, one wants to ask, "How do you know that a god or God is any of those things, and how would we very finite creatures even think about being present in all times and in all places, knowing everything that there is to know, and being unlimited in any way?"

People make things up. That's fine as long as we remember the difference between what we made up and what actually exists without our help. Unfortunately, we tend to believe our own bullshit.

The rash is back. So I'm bumping this thread. There are good philosophical and social reasons to remove certain threads.

The list in the OP would today read:

• Adam Eve and the unjust punishment
• Divine Hiddenness
• Multiple Messiah Theory
• Explanations of Christian Hell?
• Understanding the Christian Trinity
• The Possibility of Infinite Punishment in Hell
• Are there any scientific grounds for god?
• The eternal soul (Vitalism): was Darwin wrong?
• An Argument Against Theological Fatalism
• Jesus and Greek Philosophy

Again, these threads should be removed if they

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

Yeah, it's a good point and I have wondered why some of these threads are here. Hasn't stopped me sticking my nose in like a schmuck....

I think people people can act in bad faith on many issues not just religious ones - I’ve seen it often enough on this forum.

Theology is an area that can, but does not always, assume the existence of a deity or some overarching dimension to reality. This, for those who don’t believe, can be approached by understanding the premise is not something you hold but your comrade in discussion/debate does BUT this premise in and of itself is not under scrutiny (yet your partner in discussion may be willing to go off topic).

If your interest lies in Philosophy of Religion then you must interact with theological believers.

Like everywhere in life not everyone is worth talking to, but it is worth giving everyone a chance to express their thoughts and perhaps find something to build on immediately or in future discussions.

Sure, but:

In summary there are three things that identify a move from a philosophical enquiry to mere theology: — Banno

• claiming that god is the answer to a philosophical question
• using scripture, revelation or other religious authority in an argument
• entering into a philosophical argument in bad faith.

These merit deletion or banning.

Only if they act with hostility towards others who disagree. I would also say that many not believing in scriptures and such shouldn’t mock.

Possibly … belief in god is not essential for theological discussion

Claiming that ‘god’ is the answer is not really theology.

threads should be removed if they
...take scripture or revelation as a starting point for discussion; theology, not philosophy — Banno

Why? Is this a divine revelation you have had, an arbitrary definition you have adopted or what? There are threads on current affairs, on environmental issues, on the latest space telescope, etc, which have good claim not to be philosophy by most definitions.

I would suggest that the scope of philosophy is something to be explored, not laid down by fiat. People come with the questions that concern them, and philosophers should be able to help them clarify the issues and consider the implications. The stories we tell about our origins and nature that have found their way into religious texts are not thereby rendered off limits to philosophy, but are the foundations of society that are there to be explored and questioned. The thought police must operate here, but not in this arbitrary manner.

@Banno How about banning antitheists?

I disagree. That is insufficient. There remains a need to keep the identity of this site as a philosophy forum, not a place for religious blather.

Ontology is a whole branch of philosophical enquiry that has a long held tradition in theological circles. Should we ban ontology too?

No.

Many people here ‘blather’ all kind of nonsense that has nothing to do with religion and they are not banned. Some have even been mods!

@Banno I understand what you mean.

I think it should be taken as a case by case issue not an outright ban.

People do actually change, and some people are quite capable of discussing in what you frame as a theological sense and what you frame as a philosophy of religion sense too. The main issue is others judging them and not letting go of the fact that someone believes something and making that the whole reason to attack/besmirch them.