Finally, no more religious crap!

:rofl:

Finally, no more religious crap! — Benkei

Finally, no excuse for anti-religious bigotry in "Philosophy of Religion" threads.

I'm not anti-religious, I'm against stupid threads. And since all the god arguments have been disproved, all of them are stupid.

I'm not anti-religious, I'm against stupid threads. And since all the god arguments have been disproved, all of them are stupid. — Benkei

Definition of bigotry - The character or mode of thought of a bigot; obstinate and unreasonable attachment to a particular creed, opinion, practice, ritual, or party organization; excessive zeal or warmth in favor of a party, sect, or opinion; intolerance of the opinions of others.

No further questions. I rest my case. That's the name of that tune. Nuff said. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Ah, you've just described religious persons as bigots. That's not very nice.

Ah, you've just described religious persons as bigots. That's not very nice. — Benkei

How is that relevant to your behavior?

I'm sorry? You've been on this site how long? If you think any of the proofs of God actually works, you haven't been paying attention.

I'm sorry? You've been on this site how long? If you think any of the proofs of God actually works, you haven't been paying attention. — Benkei

Klaatu barada nikto

The character or mode of thought of a bigot; obstinate and unreasonable attachment to a particular creed, opinion, practice, ritual, or party organization; excessive zeal or warmth in favor of a party, sect, or opinion; intolerance of the opinions of others. — T Clark

Sounds like all humans are naturally bigots by this definition. There are any number of non-harmful(?) ways of being which will elicit intolerance of others with appeal to what is (sub)culturally normal.

Sounds like all humans are naturally bigots by this definition. — Nils Loc

Twas brillig and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe.

Twas brillig and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe. — T Clark

Are you implying what I said is just nonsense. Why not just say so explicitly.

:up: I'm with you on that. If some are asking what you think are silly questions, or making what you think are silly statements, regarding religion, then just turn a blind eye. as you would to any subject that doesn't interest you.

:up: I'm with you on that. If some are asking what you think are silly questions, or making what you think are silly statements, regarding religion, then just turn a blind eye. as you would to any subject that doesn't interest you.

I'm sorry? You've been on this site how long? If you think any of the proofs of God actually works, you haven't been paying attention. — Benkei

If you had been paying attention you would know that whether they are believed to work or not depends on what your unarguable founding presuppositions are; there can be no definitive demonstration that they do or do not work; the possibility of such demonstration exists only in the domain of logic or the empirical.

Yes, exactly. And assumptions aren't proof so they don't work.

just turn a blind eye. as you would to any subject that doYYesn't interest you. — Janus

Yes. That was my point in the whole exchange - Now that we can block whole categories, anti-religious people can avoid the whole problem rather than whining and growling over religious threads.

Realizing that the logical proofs for the existence of God fail isn't bigotry. It's just true.

I saw them as a helpful way to learn the basic structure of syllogisms and to locate errors within them during my introductory philosophy classes, but if you walked away from that thinking God had been proven (or disproven) by the sheer force of logic alone, I think you missed something.

Yes. That was my point in the whole exchange - Now that we can block whole categories, anti-religious people can avoid the whole problem rather than whining and growling over religious threads — T Clark

I'm not in favor of encouraging those who disagree with a topic to avoid that topic so as to allow those in agreement to hold their conversations in peace. If you advocate a position in a philosophy forum, there should be an expectation you'll receive vigorous disagreement.

In fact, if someone finds it insulting to be challenged as to their religious beliefs, then it would make better sense for that person to avoid those topics.

during my introductory philosophy classes — Hanover

:chin:

I'm not in favor of encouraging those who disagree with a topic to avoid that topic so as to allow those in agreement to hold their conversations in peace. — Hanover

Yes, I agree, but my post was in response to @Benkei's provocative post. See below.

Finally, no more religious crap!
— Benkei

Finally, no excuse for anti-religious bigotry in "Philosophy of Religion" threads. — T Clark

I'm all for respectful, responsive comments from non-theists in posts on religious subjects. Many anti-religion posts are neither.

Yes, exactly. And assumptions aren't proof so they don't work. — Benkei

Right, no deductive argument is stronger than it's premises (assumptions); but I think it is likely that only those among the religious who don't understand that believe that the arguments for the existence of God constitute absolute proofs. The arguments can be thought to "work" without the requirement that they be absolute proofs; like any valid argument the requirement is that the conclusion follows from the premises.

Yes. That was my point in the whole exchange - Now that we can block whole categories, anti-religious people can avoid the whole problem rather than whining and growling over religious threads. — T Clark

Indeed! That said I find it hard to understand how they could not simply ignore anything they found distasteful or could find no interest in. When I look at the main page I see only what interests me, and the rest is a blur.

Right, no deductive argument is stronger than it's premises (assumptions); but I think it is likely that only those among the religious who don't understand that believe that the arguments for the existence of God constitute absolute proofs. The arguments can be thought to "work" without the requirement that they be absolute proofs; like any valid argument the requirement is that the conclusion follows from the premises. — Janus

God is a pathetically persistent fairy tale people keep wanting to rationalise and when it's pointed out it's all crap, because none of those arguments work, some complain about manners. I wasn't even talking to Clarky. If anybody would start a thread about proof that unicorns existed he'd be summarily banned for low quality. Such is the immersion in Christian culture we can't even admit it's crap and then I'm the one being "provocative" and "disrespectful" for pointing it out. It's so sad that it's funny again. Anything worthwhile that can be found in religion, is easily subsumed under ethics and metaphysics. Plenty of good thinkers wasted their lives working on Christian dogma and it has resulted in some decent insights.

Thank you for sharing!

Yes, it's crap in your opinion. but that is not controversial.

It's proved crap when it logically doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Or are you now suggesting logical rules are also subjective?

Logic is nothing more nor less than valid thinking, which is again nothing more than consistency; it says nothing about the content of thought, but merely codifies its forms.

@Benkei, but it's not nice to do so.

Realizing that the logical proofs for the existence of God fail isn't bigotry. It's just true.

I saw them as a helpful way to learn the basic structure of syllogisms and to locate errors within them during my introductory philosophy classes, but if you walked away from that thinking God had been proven (or disproven) by the sheer force of logic alone, I think you missed something. — Hanover

The real issue is where exactly does the failure lie. Is the failure in the deductive logic, or in the induction? So, the cosmological argument for example, all material things have a cause, a cause is prior in time to the effect, therefore the first material thing has a prior cause which cannot be a material thing, and this we call "God".

The only real failure here is in the inductive premises concerning the causation of material objects. But when inductive premises are seen to be deprived of certainty in this way, it casts doubt on all scientific knowledge.

Solution: place this thread into a blocked category and quickly forget about it.

Solution: place this thread into a blocked category and quickly forget about it. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your post is well-expressed, and I agree. If religious posts are put into Philosophy of Religion, then those who are offended by arguments for the existence of God can just block the whole category.