What I've yet to figure out is why so many (a) religious believers, (b) idealists, and (c) continental philosophy fans are drawn to the board. Those three categories seem to cover about 95% of the people who post here. (And they're all like the Joker to my Batman)

And maybe I'm the aspiring butler !

At least they mostly manage to post in the right category.

I am neither a follower of any religion nor an atheist. From my experience here and in other places, the parties most responsible for the poor quality of the discussions are the atheists. Specific example threads:

• [text deleted by moderators] started by [text deleted by moderators]
• [text deleted by moderators] started by [text deleted by moderators]
• [text deleted by moderators] started by [text deleted by moderators]
• [text deleted by moderators] started by [text deleted by moderators]
• [text deleted by moderators] started by [text deleted by moderators]

As you can see, all the threads are started by the same member.

And no - the moderators did not actually edit this post.

[Moved to Feedback]

If Baden is correct and they are posting in the right category, and presumably in threads where they are on topic, I am not what the problem is. There is, in practical terms. endless space 'in here' and those threads should be easy to avoid. Unless the mere occurance of them nearby is problematic. If people are coming into threads and ruining them somehow, that's a problem.

. Even the apocryphal question about 'the number of angels who can dance on the point of a needle', would make better reading than what I have read here ! — fresco

Interestingly, the original debate which was thus parodied, was about whether two immaterial beings could be located in the same space - which I don't think is at all a silly question.

As to the general issue - I have noticed a greater focus on spiritual/religious on this forum, but I think it's because people really do have questions about it, and its a very hard topic to articulate by its very nature.

What, as an atheist, would be a quality discussion about religion?

Fresco, dear, lots of us are atheists, but recognize that "religion" is 100% real, even though the gods are not. Of the 7+billion people on earth, at least 6+billion think about religion in more or less positive terms (their own, usually). "My religion is good and true; your religion is a pile of crap." Atheists take that approach, too, quite often.

Religion is a critical cultural activity, and has been for quite a long time--far longer than atheism. Longer than philosophy. Longer than agriculture.

Do you have any further questions?

it seems to me that the quality of discussion on these prolific religious threads falls far short of 'philosophical debate' or even 'coherence' for participants — fresco

You oughta see the political forums.

What I've yet to figure out is why so many (a) religious believers, (b) idealists, and (c) continental philosophy fans are drawn to the board. — Terrapin Station

Which continent? America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, or Antarctica?

And how does that make any difference which continent the loser is from? I am from two continents.

What, as an atheist, would be a quality discussion about religion? — DingoJones

How stupid, inconsequential, and hair-raisingly seriously taken some of the beliefs of the religious are.

This gives us Humanists topics for millions of hours of satisfying discussions.

You oughta see the political forums. — fishfry

Politics is a form of religion. You act largely by faith. And most often you are betrayed, so it is little or not at all different from the batting average of the religious' trust in gods' promises coming true, or from prayer being answered.

This gives us Humanists topics for millions of hours of satisfying discussions. — god must be atheist

The trouble is, atheist humanism has no conception of why humans are in the universe in the first place. Like them or not, religions situate mankind in a story, give them a reason for being here and something to strive towards and live up to. Whereas a lot of folks are nowadays actually nihilist - 'nothing matters' - which doesn't necessarily manifest in very spectacular ways, just an overall absence of meaning. And sure as hell a lot of people suffer from that in today's cultures.

To which I should add, the renaissance humanists (which is where 'humanism' got started) were generally anti-Church but at the same time highly spiritual, along the lines of the 'philosophia perennis'. I'm thinking Ficino, Pico Della Mirandolla, and others of that ilk. Whereas humanism today is too often grounded in the myth that life is a chemical reaction and humans accidents of fate. It's not actually 'humanism' at all.

atheist humanism has no conception of why humans are in the universe in the first place. Like them or not, religions situate mankind in a story, give them a reason for being here and something to strive towards and live up to. — Wayfarer

This is true, but for me, personally, it takes a lot of the magic away from the otherwise cute stories that give mankind a reason to be, that they are complete bullshit.

humanism today is too often grounded in the myth that life is a chemical reaction and humans accidents of fate. It's not actually 'humanism' at all. — Wayfarer

A. It is not a myth. A myth is that the world was created in six days, and is less than 6000 years old. That's a myth. Reality is a myth only to the ignorant. "Reality is for people who can't handle drugs." "Religion is the opiate of the masses." Not different now from when they were first said.

B. Humanism is not precisely defined, but it has to do something with human beings' conscious ability to make a life without the help (real or imagined) given by any supernatural forces.

Everything else can wait, but the search for God cannot wait. — George Harrison

Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm — Unknown

:rofl:

Fresco, dear, lots of us are atheists, but recognize that "religion" is 100% real, even though the gods are not. Of the 7+billion people on earth, at least 6+billion think about religion in more or less positive terms (their own, usually). "My religion is good and true; your religion is a pile of crap." Atheists take that approach, too, quite often.

Religion is a critical cultural activity, and has been for quite a long time--far longer than atheism. Longer than philosophy. Longer than agriculture.

Do you have any further questions? — Bitter Crank

:rofl: :up: :clap:

That doesn't surprise me. What surprises me is how many people think their parents were immoral for birthing them. New thread here.....
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6623/the-kantian-case-against-procreation
And not too many days ago another new one was merged with one of the older antinatialist threads.

I have never seen this in another philosophy forum. I've seen the issue come up sure, but not with so many advocates and not with new or purportedly new angles on the issue leading to new threads, nor threads lasting so long.

A myth is that the world was created in six days, and is less than 6000 years old — god must be atheist

and how many Christians do you think actually believe that?

Every age has its myths, but the view from inside them is that they're the obvious truth.

and how many Christians do you think actually believe that? — Wayfarer

Then number of Christians believing in it does not change its status form a myth to a non-myth. Your answer is a non-sequitur. It neither supports, nor denies my point.

humanism today is too often grounded in the myth that life is a chemical reaction and humans accidents of fate. It's not actually 'humanism' at all — Wayfarer

I am on the opinion which is unproven, that you feel humanism is void of humanity, because it is void of god... and that can only be because god is a glorified human in most religions, definitely in Christian faiths. In Greek mythology, big time, too. Every human religion has some god(s) that are painfully human.

"The god of a carpenter is a carpenter. The god of a cannibal is a cannibal. The god of a businessman is a businessman." - Ralph Waldo Emerson.

He meant to say, in a way, that "the god of a human is a human".

(I once actually rephrased Emerson. "The god of a businessman is a businessman. The god of a carpenter is a carpenter. The god of an atheist is an atheist. The god of a Christian is a Jew.")

Maybe you were just joking, but here's what continental philosophy refers to...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_philosophy

Maybe you were just joking, but here's what continental philosophy refers to...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_philosophy
4 minutes ago — Coben

Thanks, Coben!

I looked up the link. This is what it (partly) said:

refer to a range of thinkers and traditions outside the analytic movement. Continental philosophy includes German idealism, phenomenology, existentialism (and its antecedents, such as the thought of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche), hermeneutics, structuralism, post-structuralism, deconstruction, French feminism, psychoanalytic theory, and the critical theory of the Frankfurt School and related branches of Western Marxism.[3]

1. I don't know what the analytic movement is. It is essential to know that in order to know what the continental movement stands for.
2. Of the listed movements, that the Continental School or Movement includes, in all earnesty either I know infinitesimally little of, or else I haven't the foggiest, what these are:
2.1. German idealism,
2.2. phenomenology,
2.3. existentialism (and its antecedents, such as the thought of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche),
2.4. hermeneutics,
2.5. structuralism,
2.6. post-structuralism,
2.7. deconstruction
2.8. Frankfurter Schule

To me "continentalism" stays a big black matter. Impenetrable, inscrutable, and undefined.

I'd need to study philosophy for at least 40 years before the term "continental philosophy" would start to gain any meaning.

"The god of a carpenter is a carpenter. The god of a cannibal is a cannibal. The god of a businessman is a businessman." - Ralph Waldo Emerson. — god must be atheist

who was one of the New England Transcendentalists and certainly no atheist.,

I'd need to study philosophy for at least 40 years before the term "continental philosophy" would start to mean something

Well, full marks for honesty!

Well, full marks for honesty! — Wayfarer

Thank you, WF, but did you actually look at the quote? It says "god is an image of humans." This is what I needed to emphasize for you, and who better to quote for you that you'd believe, than a religious leader? Emerson was a Unitarian minister, to my knowledge.

Thank you, WF, but did you actually look at the quote? — god must be atheist

Notice the small 'g'.

To me "continentalism" stays a big black matter. Impenetrable, inscrutable, and undefined. — god must be atheist

I think Terrapin would be happy with your description and agree, and that's why he is aghast.

What I've yet to figure out is why so many (a) religious believers, (b) idealists, and (c) continental philosophy fans are drawn to the board. Those three categories seem to cover about 95% of the people who post here. — Terrapin Station

It's because religion, idealism and continental philosophy are all easy to waffle on about for ages and sound cleverer than your less literate interlocutors without having to do any actual work. Read a book (preferably an obscure one), quote it (or its terminology) verbatim on a broadly related topic, bask in the glow of smug self-approbation. No-one can mount a counter-argument because no argument was ever made in the first place, just a long-winded translation of the blindingly obvious into the satisfyingly obscure.

There's a reason why the Royals all do Art History and not Astrophysics when they need their token degree.