I don't need the United States to be an atheist nation; I just need Christians not to turn it into a Theocracy.

Here's something I do worry about: because Christian fundamentalism has an anti-intellectual bent, shall we say, it is not known for its institutions of higher learning. Where then to find agreeable candidates for the Supreme Court? So now we have this:



Sotomayor is Catholic and liberal, but there could easily come a day, and that not far off, when a religious minority changes the law of the land for let's face it religious reasons. I think at that point Americans might notice that the religious make-up of the Court is a little odd, and that might spell trouble.

Well, one does what one can.

There are many Christians flocking to this forum trying to sneak in their organized religion through the door of philosophy, but philosophy isn't about the superstitious ideologies of Islam or Christianity, these cults have tried to hi-jack philosophy to propagate their error. — JerseyFlight

(In the Biercean terms below) apparently, the very nature of the latter facilitates it being "hijacked" by the likes of the former, so what can be done to stop this that doesn't resort to Jacobinite/Inquistor-like censorship?

Religion. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.

(versus)

Philosophy, n. A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing. — Ambrose Bierce

No doubt (legacy-latent) mythologies and ideologies, as well as theologies, are DANGEROUS NONSENSE obstructing "many roads" of philosophical critique ...

This thread is the attempt to make a philosophical argument that threads dealing with organized religion, revelational theology, should be placed into their own subdomain that functions just like the lounge. This means the posts will not clutter up the general philosophy threads.

Banno has made the following arguments in this direction:

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

"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 course, that does not imply that god is the correct answer.

"In summary there are three things that identify a move from a philosophical inquiry to mere theology:

"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."

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8647/demarcating-theology-or-what-not-to-post-to-philosophy-of-religion/p1

I would like expound on this thinking. We must keep in mind that this is a philosophy forum and the Philosophy of Religion as a discipline, according to Graham Oppy, "...doesn't date much earlier than the second world war."

In making this case there is really no need to look much further than John Loftus' excellent book on the topic:

"It should never be considered stupid to tell students the truth. Scientists tell their students the truth. So should philosophers. There is no longer any debate about what the truth is among intellectually honest individuals. Faith-based reasoning is not a virtue. Faith as a method is unreliable. It should never be tolerated as a justification for anything in secular universities. We can no longer take obfuscationist philosophy used in defense of the Christian delusion or any other religion seriously. Atheists who want to deal with obfuscationist philosophy correctly must seek to end its grip over our institutions of higher learning. They must seek to end its influence in our world. It's time to remove faith from philosophy. Gamesmanship will not do. Puzzle-solving will not do. Special pleading will not do. Dealing with questions that are interesting for the sake of an interesting discussion will not do. Atheists who are seeking affirmation from Christian pseudo-intellectuals will no do. A delusion is a delusion is a delusion. Two thousand years of Christianity is enough... It's time to lay it to rest, to put it away from the university and beyond." Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End, John W. Loftus pg.113-114, Pitchstone Publishing 2016

And we might add, two thousand Christian threads is enough. It's time to give the Jesus cult its own subdomain. Perhaps a section titled, "Religious Theology."

@Banno was arguing for the forced move of religious threads to the Philosophy of Religion category. That would -- since you can just exclude that category from your homepage -- serve the purposes of all members except those who happen to be non-religiously into the philosophy of religion. Such forum members would just have to deal.

You're suggesting a new category be created in addition to Philosophy of Religion -- with, I'll note, no hope of keeping them separate. That looks to me like an endorsement of this as a place to post theology. Give it a few years and the place might get renamed The Philosophy & Theology Forum. After a few more, people will be surprised there's a philosophy section tucked in next to the bustling theology discussion forum. Eventually the comparatively low traffic in the original section will lead to long emotional debates about whether to just put it out of its misery, and then one day the coin will drop, and this will be The Theology Forum.

Nah, it's not going anywhere soon — 3017amen

Silly me, presenting facts. What are facts to the faithful?

Wonderful question. Likewise, what are deductions to the meaning of life?

You're suggesting a new category be created in addition to Philosophy of Religion -- with, I'll note, no hope of keeping them separate. That looks to me like an endorsement of this as a place to post theology. Give it a few years and the place might get renamed The Philosophy & Theology Forum. After a few more, people will be surprised there's a philosophy section tucked in next to the bustling theology discussion forum. Eventually the comparatively low traffic in the original section will lead to long emotional debates about whether to just put it out of its misery, and then one day the coin will drop, and this will be The Theology Forum. — Srap Tasmaner

This is a good point. The only benefit of such a category is that it removes these kinds of posts from the general forum threads, just like the lounge. There is value in this. If these Christians are going to be cluttering up this forum to the point were mega-threads have to be constructed... well then, doesn't it just make so much more sense to isolate them in their own subcategory? It is a valid and intelligent way of dealing with the problem. The category doesn't have to be titled "Religious Theology," although that's what the category would actually contain.

It's just that here in America it's more of a losing battle for you. — 3017amen

Maybe it's a battle for you, that's why you refer to debate as "battle". To me it means searching for the truth, and loving it when I found it. That process has nothing to do with battling, my friend.

You are certainly more than welcome to argue your Atheism. — 3017amen

You are mistaken again, my friend. I am not arguing atheism. There is no need for that. I don't need to preach "beleive in no god". You believe in whatever you will.

What you mistake me for as arguing atheism, is pointing out the blindingly obvious self-contradictions, discrepancies, and in your case, hypocrisy in religious teachings. I would do that even if I believed in a god, or some gods. Many on this forum who believe in god do the same thing as I do.

You just like to simplify things to your maximum capacity of understanding the complexity of the world. EVERYONE ELSE does that, including myself, so don't take this personally, please.

What you mistake me for as arguing atheism, is pointing out the blindingly obvious self-contradictions, discrepancies, and in your case [3017amen], hypocrisy in religious teachings. I would do that even if I believed in a god, or some gods. Many on this forum who believe in god do the same thing as I do. — god must be atheist

:clap:

I don't need the United States to be an atheist nation; I just need Christians not to turn it into a Theocracy. — Srap Tasmaner

Well how fortunate for us. Meanwhile that last bit should be the least of your concerns. Faux Christians or simply liars attempting to shroud themselves in a moral cloak of righteousness to pursue unknown and possibly opposite and inverse purposes is the real snake in the grass.

"Love the God, love thy neighbor as you love yourself" is essentially the foundation of all modern law and peaceful civilization.

Again, be wary of liars and the corrupted. When discovered, apply diversity as needed.

Faux Christians or simply liars attempting to shroud themselves in a moral cloak of righteousness to pursue unknown and possibly opposite and inverse purposes is the real snake in the grass. — Outlander

Every Christian, absolutely every Christian, is decried for being a cheat or an untrue faithful by someone other who also calls himself or herself a Christian.

This is one of the fundamental problems of Christianity. A lack of uniform coherency of faith. A person whom I call as Christian because I am an atheist and he or she calls himself or herself a Christian, may be the AntiChrist in the eye of another who also calls himself or herself a Christian.

This is a bit strange, but hey.

"Love the God, love thy neighbor as you love yourself" is essentially the foundation of all modern law and peaceful civilization. — Outlander

Sorry, I had to correct and improve your quote. You see, there are a number of us who share a globe with you, who don't believe in any gods, but still are peaceful, respect the law, and are morally sound.

You're suggesting a new category be created in addition to Philosophy of Religion -- with, I'll note, no hope of keeping them separate. That looks to me like an endorsement of this as a place to post theology. — Srap Tasmaner

I had participated on a forum a long time ago, where this was the case. People could participate in that forum only by special permission, and that forum section was unknown to the general users of the forum. I happened upon it by a glitch of the programming engine, all of a sudden I was in a sea of posts about how god this and how god that. It was quite and experience, I tell you. Yet, despite that forum section devoted to the highly religious, the religious still kept on arguing their world view on the rest of the open forum sections.

Wonderful question. Likewise, what are deductions to the meaning of life? — 3017amen

New deduction on your Income Tax return? You get some more money back if you successfully discover the meaning of life. (N.B. please look up the meaning of the word "deduction". I believe you wanted to say "deducing".)

whose experience of philosophy seems to consist entirely of figuring out that god is dead and now they want to let everyone know and pick fights with people who haven't had this life-changing experience. — Srap Tasmaner

Atheistic fanaticism is as extreme as religious fanaticism. It is impressive how both are identical in characteristics.

"God is dead, and we have killed him!"

And everyone understood this statement wrong.
You shouldn't be happy about it, you should be crying...

but actually I'm up for kicking anyone who's primary activity seems to be denouncing religion, denouncing religious belief, and so on, people who seem to have come here mainly to do that, whose experience of philosophy seems to consist entirely of figuring out that god is dead and now they want to let everyone know and pick fights with people who haven't had this life-changing experience. It ought to be considered just as unacceptable as coming on here to push your religion. — Srap Tasmaner

Your argument here is wrested from context. There are lots of Christians on this site, one meets them everywhere. And this is the point that makes all the difference in the world: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Religion bears the burden of proof, and this means your position is not an equivalency. Anti-religious threads, in the sense you are trying to say they exist, must specifically be related to organized religion to be considered a legitimate antithesis. This forum does not have an overabundance of people posting anti-jesus-cult-threads, what it has is an overabundance of Christian threads pretending to be philosophy threads. Further, philosophy is by its very nature agnostic. I think your attempt at a parrot here is not only indefensible, but in bad taste.

Agree and disagree. Granted in this world something so profoundly not provable should barely be worth mentioning time and time again...

Of course this subject can be deeply emotional. For obvious reasons. Why did this happen, why does this occur, etc. Especially when it comes to loved ones who may have been screwed over or worse by supposed "loving Christians" or worse, at a young age by again supposed Christian (or whatever the persuasion) "holy men".

And some folks- religious or not- just get plain irritated when they're trying to have a logical discussion and someone is like "no because God" .. like that conveys much to a larger and non-esoteric audience. :grin:

No idea what you're saying about my proposal.

There are lots of Christians on this site, one meets them everywhere. — JerseyFlight

So what? As long as they're talking philosophy I don't care. 7 out of 10 Americans self-identify as Christian. Some of them just might come here to talk philosophy. Some of them might not ever mention their religion.

As long as they're talking philosophy I don't care. — Srap Tasmaner

Agreed.

Of course this subject can be deeply emotional. For obvious reasons. Why did this happen, why does this occur, etc. Especially when it comes to loved ones who may have been screwed over or worse by supposed "loving Christians" or worse, at a young age by again supposed Christian (or whatever the persuasion) "holy men". — Outlander

None of this has anything to do with philosophy. Reddit and Twitter are right next-door.

Merged post via @Srap Tasmaner, proposing that "The Site Guidelines Should Be Revised"

[Mod guideline extract:]Types of posters who are not welcome here:

Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having

[End of Mod Guideline extract]

Time to add Anti-evangelists with the obvious definition.

We are drowning in anti-religious posts. I tend to avoid the specifically religious threads, but it's showing up all over the place.

I was going to suggest a more general revision of the guidelines to be about types of posts that are welcome and not, instead of posters, but actually I'm up for kicking anyone who's primary activity seems to be denouncing religion, denouncing religious belief, and so on, people who seem to have come here mainly to do that, whose experience of philosophy seems to consist entirely of figuring out that god is dead and now they want to let everyone know and pick fights with people who haven't had this life-changing experience. It ought to be considered just as unacceptable as coming on here to push your religion.

I don't see what value any of this stuff is adding to the site.

I have moved this thread to Feedback, as that is what it is.

No idea what you're saying about my proposal. — Srap Tasmaner

In most cases, atheists who seek to create "theses" or "arguments" against theism in this forum are new converts who, with the fanaticism of any new convert, try to express this to everyone. And they still try to denigrate the image that religion - here not focusing on any specific one - had and still has in humanity. Christian philosophy, Islamic philosophy, Jewish philosophy, it doesn't matter, as long as doubts and/or arguments in favor are true and well formulated. What I am seeing is a tantrum of "intellectuals" who just because they do not believe in God - or Gods - think that everyone who believes must be inferior. Ridiculous.

They scream with all the fervor that only a fanatic can achieve that they are atheists. They are proud to cause their own decay ...

None of this has anything to do with philosophy. Reddit and Twitter are right next-door. — Srap Tasmaner

Perhaps not, but emotions and the thoughts, perspectives, and mental avenues they create are.

Just as you'd perhaps become upset at a philosophy that seems to not only have little use but stifle the art altogether (solipsism?), someone may become agitated and give someone a bit of an earful in the attempts to encourage them to think for themselves and use logic (which contrary to the beliefs of many is not only allowed but encouraged in most faiths). Sure, being "hellbent" on an endless, anti-religious tirade devoid of any sort of deeper philosophy is not a quality post but, hey, emotion. It is how it is, eh? :grin:

Sure, being "hellbent" on an endless, anti-religious tirade devoid of any sort of deeper philosophy is not a quality post but, hey, emotion. It is how it is, eh? — Outlander

I don't know how much more clearly you could make my case for me.

Take for example Dfpolis, he recently posted a thread titled, Fallible Foundationalism. In this thread he tries to talk about the limits of knowledge, but this is not just an innocent thread, and I called him out on it. This is a thread that is bent in the direction of his theism, he's trying to weave the argument in the direction of belief in God. Here's a quote that proves his theism:

"I think it is absolutely certain that there is an uncaused cause which has all the philosophical attributes of God. So, I don't think you have reviewed the case for theism adequately." https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/452328

And in another place:

"Let’s start by clearing up some confusion. (1) While some people may think of God as an old man in the sky, that is not the notion of God in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, nor that addressed by Aristotle or the Buddhist Logicians." https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6187/a-proof-for-the-existence-of-god

This guys a straight-up Christian trying to use the medium of Reformed Epistemology to smuggle in his premise of Jesus, pretending that his real concern is philosophy. Yes, I have a problem with this. Aside from the fact that it's pure sophistry, it's also dishonest.

What is one suppose to do when they repeatedly encounter this kind of thing? You say ignore it? It's a bait and switch tactic. These people are the ones who are bringing God into the equation.

@Srap Tasmaner: To be fair, I am currently dumping both pro and anti-religious threads into the mega-thread. Also, I think our little cadre of angry atheists were spurred on by the influx of religious threads that popped up in the last couple of days. These things ebb and flow like tides, and they're quite manageable as it stands I think.

We agree on a problem, not a solution.

Like when a poster who has posted here recently was critical of Christians, I understood where he was coming from. Quite well. However, in my arguments with him I asserted "challenging what is not proven as a simple, relative unknown versus an absolute falsehood" as opposed to "my God this, my God that".

Perhaps that's what some mean to do as well. A simple reminder that this is a philosophy forum above all, and logic, reasoning, and what is provable and debatable must always take precedence.

You can be critical of schools of thought and certain thought processes without being explicitly anti-religious. From a non-theological standpoint it helps people. Nothing wrong with that. Of course, anything can be abused but that's a separate discussion. I agree that a religious person who is not capable of explicit logical, rational discussion is probably best suited for another forum. But never to say that the two (faith and logic) are mutually exclusive.

I know what @Dfpolis is. I don't care. So long as he's talking philosophy, we're good. Maybe he does have some nefarious scheme. I don't care. I'm a grown-up.



You are in a better position to know how things are going overall than I am, no question.

I still firmly believe it should be in the guidelines. If you believe atheism is already covered by "ideology", then nothing is changed by specifying it.

I want both sides gone. I do not want this to be one of the best places on the internet to talk about whether you personally believe in God or not and what that's like for you and what you think other folks should believe.