Without going into detail, I disagree with your characterization of what I said. Some of the things you attribute to me I never said, didn't imply, and don't agree with.

No, no, no. You're doing it all wrong. You need to be more vocal and nasty. What you should have said was, "Shut up and go away. You sound like a bloody idiot, so doubly go away". — S

@HarryBalsagna - let me introduce you to S. Please believe me - he's much better now than he used to be.

I dont agree that religious ideas are special, a bad idea is a bad idea even its something cherished by the person. — DingoJones

The US, in particular, was founded by people escaping from religious oppression. For that reason, protection of religion is built into the foundation and superstructure of our institutional protections, in particular our Constitution. I'm not saying we're the only ones that feel that way. And I'm not saying that religion shouldn't be criticized.

You think anti-theists should just shut up, which is fine, but you seem to be wanting it to pit tules in place to MAKE them shut up. — DingoJones

It's hard to take your argument seriously when you completely misstate what I wrote.

would you say the same thing about 13 out of 18 anti-nazi threads? Anti racist threads? — DingoJones

There were none of those in the period I surveyed. Do you think that means everyone supports the Nazis and racists? Silly argument.

If you were antisocial more often, you'd probably be more fun. — S

We both probably used to be more fun.

I have also witnessed atheists complaining about theists incessantly posting bible verse and scripture in an attempt to shut down a philosophical discussion or debate. — HarryBalsagna

Hello and welcome. You express yourself well, so doubly welcome. I think you'll find that the kinds of things you refer to above do not happen here much. There are a good group of moderators who try to balance between reasonable civility and quality on one side and freedom of expression on the other. Also, as I've noted in my posts on this thread, vocal theists are far outnumbered by atheists and other anti-religious posters - often very vocal and nasty.

While I agree with the sentiment that respect is important in furtherance of substantive discourse, I find it difficult to agree with things akin to "the oppression of Judeo-Christian thought". Thick skin is kind of a requisite to entering into a forum such as this. If you're not willing to have your ideas or beliefs challenged, perhaps this is not the right place for you... otherwise, let the moderators be the judge of what crosses the line. — HarryBalsagna

I agree. If you look at my other posts and threads, I think you'll see that I can dish it out and take it. I come here to have my ideas challenged. Otherwise, what's the point. I don't think that contradicts being respectful. Keeping in mind that, for me, civility and courtesy are a goal and not an accomplishment. I'm working on it.

Yes, I read that part. But like I literally just said to you, it's not a problem for there to be discussions critical of religion. It would actually be more of a problem if discussions critical of religion were a rarity. — S

In many ways, I classify anti-religious discussions in with anti-natalism and free will/determinism. They're just so fucking tiresome. The same lame, smug, arrogant arguments over and over again, three threads at a time, on and on forever. No one listens to anyone else. I try to avoid them. I regret it when I give in to temptation.

I don't expect anti-religious threads to go away. I don't even want them to. A 6 month voluntary moratorium would be nice, but I'm not sure people would go along with that. How about that - a 6 month vacation from discussions T Clark doesn't want to hear. All in favor.....

Again. It comes back to hypocrisy and nastiness. I try not to complain about moderation on the forum and I'm not complaining about it now. That's why I started the thread - my own effort to hold people responsible for their anti-social behavior without the threat of official action.

Your post did not even begin on a helpful note, so it is bizarre you expect people here to follow a more respectful tone.

It is just some passive aggressive complaint about one user and supposedly "anti-religious" people "pissing you off"—posing no helpful guidelines for people to follow.

All it says is, TL;DR — "atheists and the anti-religious" should keep their mouths shut. What does this even contribute to the forum? — Swan

I went back and checked all my posts in this thread. All of them were reasonably civil and respectful, if harsh. I didn't say anti-religionists should keep their mouths shut. I said that, if they did, the problem would go away.

Again - how about some specific examples.

That's not true though. It's not causing a problem to be critical of religion. Religion has much to be critical of. — S

Did you read my posts? 13 out of eighteen threads concerning religion in the past two weeks were anti-religion. None were pro-religion. If anti-religionists would just stop squawking, the whole set of issues as they relate to the forum would shrink almost to nothing.

Lol, nothing in this post was anti-religious or an attack on anyone. — Swan

Your post is not very helpful. If you want to contribute rather than just snipe, please be more specific.

...calling something ridiculous or stupid isnt always just a rude, hyperaggressive or otherwise dick move. — DingoJones

I could argue about this I guess, but it's not what my post was about. As I've said, there wouldn't be any problems in this area except that the anti-religionists step in and cause them. Then they blame it on the believers. It's hypocrisy. It's dishonest. We could talk about whether it is proper to treat believers or their ideas with disrespect. I don't think it is, but I'm not here to preach that sermon.

There are rabid anti-theists who are obnoxious, like that Gnostic guy you just barfs out rants but there are just as many other obnoxious folks, the anti natalist guys, the general personalities of sime folks...singling out the ant- religious folks is making a special plea for religious beliefs to be exempt from discourse. Too bad, its not a special set of ideas, — DingoJones

In my recent post to Hanover, I gave my response to a similar statement. For the record, anti-natalists drive me crazy for some of the same reasons. Free will discussions are annoying too, not because of any misbehavior on the poster's part, but because they regurgitate the same arguments over and over, often on two or three separate threads at the same time.

Oh, and by the way, yes, religious ideas are a special set, whether you think they should be or not. Much of the last two or three century's push for human and civil rights has been fueled by a desire for freedom to worship. There is rabid disrespect for various religious groups and beliefs everywhere in the world. That vitriol leads to conflict and violence. I don't claim that posters on the thread are a danger. I guess I'd turn it around the other way. If I won't stand up to their ugly prejudice here on the nice safe forum, how likely is it I'll do it when it might really make a difference.

You are acting like its someone elses responsibility that the ideas dont make sense, but its not. Its on the religious people and their goofy ideas. Sorry some people believe in nonsense but they do. Its not rude to point it. — DingoJones

You are responsible for your behavior, not anyone else's ideas.

Why do you find religious intolerance more offensive than say free will intolerance or capitalism intolerance or the various other intolerances pervasive throughout this forum? Why demand special respect for the religious (a group I tend to often actually align with)? If I need special protection for my views, then that could mean my views can't stand on their own merit. — Hanover

I didn't say it was offensive. I said it was annoying and it pisses me off. So, why pick on religious intolerance 1) The main culprits in the anti-religionist brigade are hypocrites. They cause the problem and then vent their spleens about how terrible it all is. 2) Those bozos are so fucking self-righteous 3) Anti-religious arguments tend to be the nastiest on the forum. 4) Most of the anti-religion threads are poorly thought through. Bad philosophy. 5) It's not the only thing that annoys me, it's just the one I'm talking about now.

As you know, I'm trying my best to be a nice and considerate philosopher. So, perhaps you can help me. If someone has a religious belief that is stupid or ridiculous, what should I do? Should I give them a hug? — S

You certainly may give them a hug (after a suitable trigger warning and a check of any applicable harassment policy). If you decide not to hug them, I don't have any particular recommendations. The point of my OP was to point out the hypocrisy of a large group of anti-religious members along with identifying the damage it does to the forum. Did I mention it pisses me off?

I've been on the receiving end of more than one diatribe by a theist or agnostic here, so "solely" is just plain false. — Artemis

I've presented evidence in my OP. Out of eighteen posts on religion active within the last two weeks, 13 were anti-religion and five were neutral. Odds are you were accosted with a diatribe in an anti-religious post. Hardly seems fair to complain about that. Anyway, I'm not saying that pro-religionists never misbehave, but, generally speaking, they don't start the fights and they aren't the nasty ones once the fights are started.

Doesn't this kinda amount to a truism? We'll all disagree a lot less when we only talk to people we agree with? — Artemis

That misses my point a bit - anti-religionists are the sole cause of the problem their diatribes are purported to address. If they would stop, there would be very little religious discussion.

But yes, the idea of segregating the forum along those lines is ridiculous. — S

It wasn't my idea.

My avatar ------- what can I say. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I thought you were just a fan of "The Lion King."

And the ability to edit. — S

Yes, good point.

There are two features useful in editing posts that are not, as far as I know, available for private messages. 1) Preview and 2) If I move out of a thread when I've started a post, it's waiting for me when I come back. If I do that in the Inbox, my PM is erased.

Is there any way these features can be added for PMs?

Rather selective in your views. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

As Aristotle once said "facts is facts." Or was that me?

You centered me out as one of the worst offenders, and you are correct, while ignoring that I am a religionist whom you have tried to label as an atheist. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I wasn't aware that you are not an atheist. I'll be more careful in the future. From now on I'll say "atheists and anti-religionists," or something like that.

BULLSHIT. The main issue with the diagram above (ignoring all the other issues already said) is that it ignores the possibility of not having a belief whatsoever. Proponents of this kind of diagram claim that you have to be an atheist or a theist, and often claim that atheism is the null position (which is question-begging). — darthbarracuda

I appreciate you starting this discussion. It's well written and the argument is well presented. The issue you have raised is one that has bothered me. I don't fit into any of the classifications normally provided.

Practically, under what circumstances could one not have a belief (one way or the other) about god(s) or no god(s) in this god(s)-soaked world? Is anyone born into and matured in a society where the null position of "not having a belief" exists? — Bitter Crank

I think I'm pretty close to being a person who does not have a belief. When I think about it, what I tell myself is that I don't have an opinion. I try to be careful to say I'm not a believer of any religion, but I try to leave God out of it.

I think it's usually muddled by different understandings of what "knowledge" and "belief" entail.

Personally I've had to "unlearn" atheistic arguments. My current position is that I don't know what I can know about (1) what God is like, or (2)what the appropriate attitude towards God is. It's the perfect position to piss off both atheists who insist I must therefore be an atheist since I must be rejecting the usual theistic conceptions of God, and the people of the faith I was born into, since it doesn't take much to be declared an apostate under it. — Sinderion

Well said. In the neighborhood of what I believe. See me? I'm waving from my kitchen window.

Cool. :) I think that my interests were perhaps more tangential to yours, then. I think I was coming at this from the perspective of "OK, having established this, that, and the other, then. . . " — Moliere

It was a helpful and enjoyable thread for me.

You're putting the carriage in front of the horse. According to you, as I understand, it is not the fault of stupid, outdated, unsubstantiated and improbable beliefs and their ensuing dogma that is the cause of stirfe and conflict, but the people who point out that the dogmas are borne from improbable beliefs, from stupid, outdated, and unsubstantiated claims. — god must be atheist

I went back and checked for the last week. During that period, there were 18 active threads that dealt with the existence of God. Based on the opening post, thirteen of them were anti-religion and five of them I classified as neutral. I didn't identify any pro-religion threads, which doesn't mean that there weren't pro-religion posts within some of the threads. Based on that limited survey, if you guys would just keep your mouths shut, there would be very little discussion of religion on the forum.

You realize that you have made a brilliant argument on the side of religion, the aim of which is to stop, stifle and squelch any progress, any creative and logical thought, to silence all those whose thinking can carry the world ahead, instead of keeping the masses steeped deep in ignorant dogma. — god must be atheist

I don't think my argument is brilliant, but yours is laughable. I can't see where anything I wrote in this thread is pro-religion. I'd say it is primarily neutral. I pointed out that the vast majority of writing about God on the forum is anti-religion and written by atheists and concluding, from that, that any trouble with religious issues is caused by people who are anti-religion. How is that pro-religion? I'd say it's anti-hypocrisy. Anti-hatred. Against bad philosophy. Against bigotry.

If you want to find a rabid atheist, then look no further than me. — god must be atheist

I thought about including you along with GCB, but I didn't want to complicate this discussion.

And I don't know how many rabid atheists you've known, so this may sound new to you: in my opinion any serious talk about religion is an insult to intelligence. This is so because: No prediction has ever come true as written in religious texts; their content is getting more and more ridiculously childish by modern standards; the religious, instead of admitting the failure of their scriptures, try to smoothe over the self-contradictions and obviously wrong claims by "interpreting" the texts; and the entire body fo scriptures, that form the base of religions, is refutable, ridiculous (but not funny) and logically unsound and have been so since day one. — god must be atheist

Thanks, I couldn't have asked for a better example to show @Jacob-B what I am talking about.

Under this light, maybe you can understand our, the atheists', fervent attacks against ANYTHING that has to do with religions or with gods. — god must be atheist

I understand that you make the attacks you refer to, but I won't acknowledge that you have any good reasons for them. As you say, they are futile. Pointless. Bad philosophy.

A lot, and I mean a lot, of ill feelings and futile argumenting could be avoided this way. — god must be atheist

Thanks for highlighting what I wrote previously - I find that atheists are primarily responsible for whatever conflict there is. I would not support your plan for segregation, but if it were decided to implement it here on the forum, my vote would be to evict the atheists.

This forum is also full of illogical theorizing by religious thinkers. — god must be atheist

I haven't found that to be true. There are a lot more vocal atheists here than believers. The atheists also tend to be more rabid. Case in point - Gnostic Christian Bishop.

I am a non-believer. I should point out that belief in cures by holy men and holy places exist also among Jews a Moslems but. unlike in Catholicism, they are not sanctioned by mainstream establishments. — Jacob-B

Just for the record - I don't follow any specific religion and I don't have much in the way of religious belief.

I asked whether you were a follower because, while it makes sense to me if you are a Catholic to focus on such a narrow doctrinal issue, if you are not, it seems like an odd choice. This forum is full of criticism of religion by non-believers from all sorts of directions. A lot of them like to focus on the behavior of religious institutions that seems inconsistent with their doctrine. They discuss religious wars, persecution of other religions, personal failings of religious people from pedophile priests to Muhammad, the Inquisition, the genocide of native populations, religious wars, and on and on. Others argue the lack of evidence for religious phenomena and the lack of credibility of belief based on faith. Others point out the inconsistencies of religious beliefs and doctrine.

I guess the next question is - Is the purpose of your post to undermine the credibility of Catholic religious belief? If so, I'll repeat what I wrote above - It's an odd choice of issues. In the overall scope of things, it seems pretty trivial. It's like complaining about the color of the paint in the Pope's bedroom.

Maybe if you can explain more, it will make more sense to me. By the way - although the subject of the thread perplexes me a bit - your opening post was well-written and you laid out the issues you are interested in clearly.

I don't think we are far apart with respect to what I might term hyper-rationalists -- I take that to be the target of your thread. — Moliere

I didn't really have any targets. I wanted to talk about the subject of introspection to clarify in my mind my own personal experiences. I wanted to hear other people's opinions. This grew out of a recent thread about what it feels like to know something. There's a lot of silly talk about what knowing means (justified true belief theory as the prime example) that I find evaporates when I look at how it really works while I'm thinking. It struck me how often I talk about my experience of how mental processes work in my posts. From responses I've gotten, that appears to be alien to a lot of people on the forum and, I assume, in general.

As to where to go from here, I think I've gotten out of it what I wanted. The thread has almost 200 posts. I generally find that about 100 is the right number before all I do is repeat myself, which I have been doing for quite a while.

To see a world of things is to already have categorized the world into objects, which involves a fallible process of reasoning, even though it's non linguistic. — aporiap

Let me think.....Ok, yes. But it is possible to experience the world - interior or exterior - without reasoning, without seeing it as a world of things. That's what I've been talking about when I've been discussing introspection. I've come to think that may be too narrow a view for this discussion and may have distracted from the point I am trying to make. I've said this several times in this thread and more in other threads - for me, first comes observation - no words, no reason, no processing. Then comes words, processing, reason. The words are needed when I go to explain what I've observed to myself and others.

Other people in this discussion who otherwise seem to agree with me draw the line elsewhere. They talk about introspection as including the bare, unprocessed observation and the reasoning together as one phenomenon. I assume they see it as all part of one process, as you seem to. That difference may have distracted from the main theme of this thread for me - the value of looking inside ourselves for information.

When saying why can't object A and B occupy the same space at the same time, I meant why can't object A occupy the space occupied by B at the same time. — elucid

As @Echarmion points out - my wife and I occupy the same the same place, my house, at the same time. Three quarks occupy the same place, a proton, at the same time.

So, here are these three quarks. They are pushed apart by the electromagnetic force and held together by the electromagnetic force and the strong force. These forces will be at equilibrium in a stable system. So, how do we get them closer so they can be in the same place? I guess you would have to add a lot of energy. So, let's collide two particles together in an accelerator. What happens then? 1) one, the other, or both can rebound in directions determined by the laws of conservation of momentum and energy 2) one, the other, or both can shatter with the pieces heading off in different directions again based on laws, or 3) they could combine and the combined particle could travel off in a new direction depending on the conservation laws also.

Let's look at possibility 3. Perhaps they will form a new composite particle, e.g two hydrogen nuclei joining to be come a helium nucleus. I don't think this process leads to the particles being what you call "in the same place." What else is there? Can two otherwise indivisible particles somehow overlap with each other? What would be the mechanism for that. What forces would hold them together?

Somebody please correct my physics if it's wrong.

I have been thinking about this for a while now, and I do not understand why people claim that two objects cannot occupy the same space. — elucid

As Elucid's comment demonstrates, the answer to your question depends on how you define "the same space." It is always good to define your terms at the beginning of a thread. It's the original poster's job.

I'm sorry some of this is just really subtle because it's easy to assume an 'introspection' involves a factual claim about your inner life 'e.g. 'I am feeling tired'. I think the moment you begin to try concluding something about your inner life is the moment fallibility becomes possible. — aporiap

Yes, the minute I try to put my inner experience into words, that changes everything. Of course, the same is true when I observe the dog on my front lawn.

Hardly anything characterizes the irrational intransigence of the Catholic church than the belief in ‘Miracle Cures’. — Jacob-B

Are you discussing this issue as a Christian who disagrees with Church doctrine or as a non-believer who is criticizing an irrational belief? My response would be different depending on which.

Generally, pure thought; specifically, as a component of it, understanding. — Mww

Thought is not introspection, it is the thing that introspection observes. Again - whatever you call it - you have redefined the terms of this discussion.

I'll give you the last word and go play with someone who will play by the rules.

I reject the idea of introspection as the most obvious, most readily available, most commonly accessed, means for self-observation. — Mww

Well, introspection is self-observation of internal states. I started the thread, so it must be true. When I have been writing about introspection, that's what I've been writing about. If you're using a different definition, it would have been helpful and courteous if you'd told us that back at the beginning.

What other methods of self-observation are there?

I don’t even deny introspection exists. — Mww

You did previously deny that introspection exists. Have you reconsidered?

Whatever - I stand behind my judgment of arrogance.

What....did I over-simplify?

You accused me of being arrogant in rejecting some collective experience, when all I’m rejecting is an idea.

(Sigh) — Mww

So, you don't deny our experience, just that what we experienced exists. Is that correct?

Or is it that what we experienced isn't introspection? But that can't be right, because earlier I defined "introspection" as "observing yourself the same way you observe the rest of the world," which is what I experienced.

So observing or recognizing yourself as having or experiencing certain internal states, emotions, thoughts. That's introspection correct? I think the process of labeling feelings, 'recognizing' certain feelings is falliable. — aporiap

If realizing means labeling, that's not what I'm talking about. As I said previously - No inferring, no explaining, no understanding, no attribution, no acknowledgment. Now we can add no labeling and, I suppose, no recognizing. An episode of the Simpsons comes to mind when they go to Australia.



In case you couldn't tell, you're the bartender.

I don’t like e.g., the Dallas Cowboys, but I wouldn’t disallow a friend from coming in my house because he’s wearing one of their t-shirts. — Mww

Do you deny the very idea of the Dallas Cowboys? If so, you are a truly dedicated fan.

I never said, nor even hinted, that I reject your collective experiences of introspection. — Mww

You wrote:

my rejection of the very idea of introspection — Mww

What did I misunderstand?

I explained my rejection of the very idea of introspection primarily because it is only rationality anyway, and secondary to that, it is redundant to understanding. — Mww

So, you reject @Coben's, @Judaka's, and my experience of introspection. That's pretty arrogant and it shows a lack of imagination and empathy. If you can't imagine that other people experience things differently than you do, that says something about you, not about us. When time comes time to use, evaluate, draw conclusions from the information we gather, that's open season.

You don't think we occasionally confabulate, thinking sometimes we know how we felt or why we did a certain thing when in actuality the real reason, if any, was different? I think it's very possible to misattribute emotions and misunderstand feelings, specifically when there are implicit attitudes or biases hidden because of whatever discomfort they cause to ackgnowledge. I think, as with any other sort of infering, like with external observation, it's possible to not be right even with introspection. — aporiap

As I wrote, introspection is observation, not interpretation, not intuition. How do I know that?....Introspection. I observe my introspection. How? Using my introspection. No inferring, no explaining, no understanding, no attribution, no acknowledgment.

For a moment, just imagine what I'm talking about. From what you've written, it seems like you don't experience things this way. But people do. I do. We're not wrong. You're not wrong either, except when you say we're wrong. People are different. Why is that hard to understand?