• Jamal
    9.8k
    I didn't know this functionality existed until today, when @Daniel explained it here.

    If you click on a category in the left hand menu (on mobile these are under Categories in the top right menu) and scroll to the bottom, there is an icon button of an eye, which toggles the main page visibility of discussions in that category.
  • Benkei
    7.8k
    Finally, no more religious crap!
  • T Clark
    14k
    Finally, no more religious crap!Benkei

    Finally, no excuse for anti-religious bigotry in "Philosophy of Religion" threads.
  • Benkei
    7.8k
    I'm not anti-religious, I'm against stupid threads. And since all the god arguments have been disproved, all of them are stupid.
  • T Clark
    14k
    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.
  • Benkei
    7.8k
    Ah, you've just described religious persons as bigots. That's not very nice.
  • T Clark
    14k
    Ah, you've just described religious persons as bigots. That's not very nice.Benkei

    How is that relevant to your behavior?
  • Benkei
    7.8k
    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.
  • T Clark
    14k
    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
  • Nils Loc
    1.4k
    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.
  • T Clark
    14k
    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.
  • Nils Loc
    1.4k
    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.
  • Janus
    16.5k
    :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.
  • Janus
    16.5k
    :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.
  • Benkei
    7.8k
    Yes, exactly. And assumptions aren't proof so they don't work.
  • T Clark
    14k
    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.
  • Hanover
    13k
    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
    13k
    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 threadsT 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.
  • Noble Dust
    8k
    during my introductory philosophy classesHanover

    :chin:
  • T Clark
    14k
    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.
  • Janus
    16.5k
    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.
  • Benkei
    7.8k
    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.
  • Janus
    16.5k
    Yes, it's crap in your opinion. but that is not controversial.
  • Benkei
    7.8k
    It's proved crap when it logically doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Or are you now suggesting logical rules are also subjective?
  • Janus
    16.5k
    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.
  • Shawn
    13.3k
    @Benkei, but it's not nice to do so.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.2k
    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.
  • T Clark
    14k
    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.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.