I do feel as if a push for heavier moderation has come in the past year or so, but maybe that's my own perception. — Noble Dust

That’s an anecdote!

I’ll keep that in mind.

Lucky for you the site guidelines don’t mention anything about being mean.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8591/least-favorite-moderators

I don’t think @StreetlightX wants to be your friend.

Metaphilosophy about style is indeed VERY MUCH a thread, rather than barely. This is self evident. — Noble Dust

Dude, come on. StreetlightX already ripped my thread, I don’t need him to do it again. :cry:

Most low-quality posters don't even know that their posts are low quality. For those who do: You're either complaining about the mods decision to delete your thread, or you're asking for help. I usually don't do any.

I already admired that this site is not the best match for me.

It doesn’t make me reluctant to post again. — Brett

I guess I'm just an oddball.

My bad.

You're kind of right because I didn't think the moderators wanted that in the main forum.

I did.

Controversial, and I don't condone it, but this one stayed main page for a good while if I'm not mistaken — Noble Dust

Correction: I wrote that one in the lounge. :rofl:

The mods step in; we generally agree with them, — Brett

That's true, but there's also an unintended (or perhaps intended) consequence to a mod deleting your thread, it makes you more reluctant to create another one. Usually the mod will say "low post quality", and that's it. Many users are thinking"I don't know what it means to improve my post quality", I guess I'll just won't post anymore.

I think the 'General Philosophy' section is the tricky part.

No mods online now. :lol:

How do I share an abusive PM so that the perp can be dealt with? — Banno

I’m pretty sure you can add a moderator to that conversation. I’m not sure if the moderators want you doing that though.

:starstruck:

Just wanted to make sure. :up:

Are we picking on theists?

Truth is I really don’t know much about William Lane Craig’s academic reputation. I just don’t like him (which doesn’t mean much btw).

Look what I found: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPdA9zLPgLvFTgWa4jJfRFrkAxwTSzj-u

Why I am not a Christian: https://youtu.be/NdDYvvevLZk

Russel-Copleston debate: https://youtu.be/Kz2GjKPbQds

I also like A.C Grayling a lot.

Be aware of biases though. Plantinga is very much laying out an apologetics, an attempt to philosophically justify religion. — Pfhorrest

True, but he is at least better than William Lane Craig.

Understood. I suggest you take a look at contemporary PoR philosophers. I heard Alvin Plantinga is a popular one.

I don’t think you should give a damn what other people dislike. If you’re interested in the philosophy of religion, then go post there. Enjoy yourself!

But if you were not interested in ethics, why bother to post? — Banno

I only posted to express my pessimism about morality. If I really wanted a serious debate about ethics I would have posted something more substantial. That's all I wanted to say. I apologize for your time; Carry on.

I've got bigger problems than having to worry about ethics. Get back to me when philosophers manage to convince two percent of society to be ethical.

Hence, what society prefers is not the very same as what is good. — Banno

A pretty much useless statement.

Then God is screwed — Kenosha Kid

I agree. Society doesn't see anything wrong with not taking care of their mentally ill because the mentally ill are essentially powerless.

I agree with your thesis then.

So instead of pretending to be satisfied with the little you have, strive to achieve and get more. — Gitonga

Good advice for people who are not well to do, and have lots of potential. Bad advice for spoiled rich kids.

I believe this is all relevant: Housing discrimination in the US, Decades-Old Housing Discrimination Case Plagues Donald Trump

List of dutch philosophers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dutch_philosophers

Anyone who cites Prager U disqualifies themselves from being taken seriously, ever. — StreetlightX

You guys should be more happy @ssu @Tzeentch @StreetlightX (source). :broken: :rage: :fire: :death: :

I thought scientists are, first and foremost, concerned only about the material. — TheMadFool

It depends on what you mean by "material". I also don't like the word 'materialism' because most materialist include in their ontology things that ordinary people wouldn't call "material".

Also, I meant vagueness and not ambiguity. If it's the latter then it implies a word has more than one meaning but each of them may have a "precise" definition. — TheMadFool

Ambiguity is still not good for a scientific term (but that is another story). 'Universe' is a vague concept because there's so much we don't know. 95 percent of the so-called "universe" is made of dark matter and dark energy, to which scientists are clueless as to what they are. And it's no good to say that the 'universe' is merely an extension of space (bracketing all the unknown dark matter and dark energy); There's still the question of where the boundaries exist at the edge of the universe. I'm hoping that one day scientists will come up with a better word to describe what's out there.

Okay, suppose we define the universe as “all there is”. There’s the ambiguity concerning abstract objects (such as numbers); Some say numbers exist in the universe, others don’t. And that’s only one problem. The term universe isn’t restrictive enough, anything can be considered part of the universe.

Consider this:

The cosmos (UK: /ˈkɒzmɒs/, US: /-moʊs/) is the Universe. Using the word cosmos rather than the word universe implies viewing the universe as a complex and orderly system or entity; the opposite of chaos.[1] The cosmos, and our understanding of the reasons for its existence and significance, are studied in cosmology (wiki)