I voted close but with a caveat. I think some template should be produced of existing arguments for and against God. Like the ontological argument, or the problem of evil, etc.
This is when you notice that secularism, which is ostensibly a value-free framework within which ideas of all kinds can be debated and discussed, actually has its own ideological content. Not that its proponents would ever be able to acknowledge that.
StreetlightNovember 12, 2019 at 03:20#3514580 likes
Yeah, nah.
Noble DustNovember 12, 2019 at 03:23#3514590 likes
A disturbingly insane idea. There are lots of low quality phil of religion threads, of course, but you can't strong arm or wish-fulfill your way into the type of philosophical milieu you wish you existed in. The reality is that you exist in one where there's a large push (often from younger people) to ask these questions, albeit often poorly.
The more interesting question is why all these threads exist.
To be brief, I think the evidence of the site is that a philosophical discussion of religion is not possible here.
If not here, then where?
I do get what you are saying though. I find most of the religion/atheism threads to be boring and repetitive. However, I voted to keep the section, because for about a year, those posts did not bore me. I had thoughts and questions, and was surprised to see the positions of other people. But after reading and/or participating in many of those threads, I feel I have likely said/heard all the major points that can be made.
So while I agree that those threads can't go anywhere for those who are experienced in the discussion, they can be interesting and even informative to people who are new to philosophy (and I don't mean new to serious academic philosophy, I mean new to delving into questions like "is there a god?")
But I certainly understand your feelings that those threads are quite unproductive.
The forum owner and administration can do whatever they want. It’s not a democracy, so this is a wasted effort.
Yes, agreed, and based on my experience, let me emphasize that we should not even want a democracy in these matters. The populace should have no say whatsoever over the rules, let alone, be allowed to vote over them. I hate democracy, because I profoundly hate the stupidity and ignorance of the unwashed masses.
Vulgus, plebs imperitum ad deteriora promptum.
Deleted UserNovember 12, 2019 at 04:43#3514730 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
christian2017November 12, 2019 at 05:10#3514790 likes
Right, your opinion is duly noted but thats not a good reason to abolish the religion forum. Obviously people enjoy and participate in that forum, so get your head out of your ass. Your OP is a shameful move for anyone interested in philosophy and discourse, and an online community like this one.
May I suggest an alternative (that someone may suggest to the software developers): a user-by-user ability to unsubscribe some subforums from the main page?
Deleted UserNovember 12, 2019 at 06:13#3514890 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
I think if not abolish then at least entertain what has been said by other folk 100x over? A newbie might get more out of a 5 minute read on Wikipedia for proofs for or against God than trying to derive the same concepts propounded x years/decades ago?
Im aware that you asked for votes, and that you are very unlikely to bring about what you suggest. It is none the less shameful for anyone claiming an interest in philosophy and discourse, or for someone acting as part of a community to suggest or call for suppression or abolishment of topics/discourse they happen to dislike and/or get nothing out of themselves.
Also, it IS snobby to dismiss all those discussions and people as ignorant or unreasonable. Just because you have the foresight to bring that up before being accused of it doesnt mean your not doing it. Ridiculing religion and the religious is actually classic philosophical snobbery, and note I understand how well religion and the religious can make such snobbery not only easy but justified. Whats shameful isnt the snobbery, its the call you’ve made to satisfy your own sense of philosophical purity. It is a more unworthy act for a philosopher than chasing ones tail in a philosophy of religion forum, thats for sure.
So I say again, shame on you.
Deleted UserNovember 12, 2019 at 06:48#3515010 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
SophistiCatNovember 12, 2019 at 06:52#3515030 likes
But my point is that what is done there, in my relatively long experience, never rises to the level of philosophy, that is, a discussion of ideas with a reasoned and reasonable back-and-forth.
You could say the same thing about discussions elsewhere on the forum, with the same justification.
Not least bcause even any discussion towards an agreement on terms seems impossible, never mind reasonable argument.
Oh right, just as I thought. Your own recent thread in that forum didn't go to your liking, so you are lashing out against the forum. (I didn't look at it much, TBH - the premise for the discussion didn't look promising.)
Reply to tim wood Of course not. If you can't just 'be in the subforum and not of the subforum, then don't go slumming there. Besides, running of the bulls____ keeps rodeo clowns like me off the streets and out of saloons or houses of ill repute. Thank Great Googly Moogly! You sermonizing like this (instead of philosophizing), Rev. Tim, is just some old-time foolishness of the wise. :yawn:
[quote=Matthew 18:9]And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.[/quote]
:pray: Nah, flayers are good for the sole; let us prey ...
It's possible, to remove sections from your 'all discussions' page. I just have the religion section turned off, so I only go there knowing what I'm getting into.
That said, I think the decision to keep the Lounge off the public front page is a good one in terms of the kind of people it would be good have on board. We should present a more serious face, I think, and the plethora of stupid theism/atheism discussions are not helping. That said...
You could say the same thing about discussions elsewhere on the forum, with the same justification.
...is the point. I don't mind the number of threads of (what I think of as) poor quality discussion (also some really good ones in the past have petered out, or deteriorated into garbage), but it would be nice to have something like the (lounge/not lounge) distinction for serious/not serious discussion. We could have a fairly simple rule that the discussion should be about some published paper, which participants should have read, that would be relatively incontestable (so not require a huge increase in moderator effort) and should clear out a lot of the garbage.
christian2017November 12, 2019 at 09:04#3515290 likes
To be brief, I think the evidence of the site is that a philosophical discussion of religion is not possible here. I vote, then, that the forum be "disappeared." And any post on such a topic be folded into The Lounge.
The evidence shows that there is a desire for such discussion. About various aspects of religion and spirituality. Clearly, it is possible. Why on earth should it be 'folded' ?
The philosophical perspective remains pertinent.
The mods are there to overview any problems.
If you have concerns about content, follow the guidance and let them do their job.
I like sushiNovember 12, 2019 at 09:41#3515360 likes
I’d sooner vote for banning Tim Wood than preventing religious people fro discussing on a forum where some of their more ‘radical’ ideas may actually be questioned rationally and politely.
I don’t see how creating a bubble as to what can and cannot be brought into philosophical discussion would be helpful for anyone. That said specialised forums for ‘Ethics’ or ‘Philosophy of Science’ can be great too. There is a need for sites that look at the broader field of play just as there is for ones that look at the narrower field of play.
I was under the impression this was a forum that dealt with every aspect of philosophical discourse. Theology and the Philosophy of Religion are necessary parts of human activity and so I don’t see how it would help to cut them off?
That said it does help if people take their arguments up in the correct forum rather than spilling over into other areas. It will inevitably happen from time to time though.
Deleted UserNovember 12, 2019 at 10:50#3515440 likes
Because after years of reading in the Philosophy of Religion Forum, I cannot remember any thread there that was a philosophical discussion.
We should also get rid of discussions of metaphysics, politics, feminism, definitely anti-natalism...
in fact as I think of it, most threads seem to not meet the criteria of good philosophical discussion. People talk past each other. People cherry pick. People use straw man arguments. People insult. People go in circles and repeat arguments I have seen years ago.
Let's make the whole thing a Lounge.
(and yes, I know, there are likely differences of degree between subjects and I am being polemical, though that quality should fit in well in the thread.)
Deleted UserNovember 12, 2019 at 10:53#3515450 likes
You could say the same thing about discussions elsewhere on the forum, with the same justification.
I agree and I also think it is taking two to tango in all of those not up to snuff discussions. People rarely seem to notice what their own team is doing in these threads, and it ain't pretty.
DingoJonesNovember 12, 2019 at 12:30#3515520 likes
Asking for the “disappearing” of a sub forum, or having it “folded” elsewhere is asking for abolishment. You are removing it from the philosophical discourse and putting it somewhere that better suits your sensibilities. You are trying to eliminate religious Philosophical discussion from the rest of the philosophical discussions. I don’t think abolishment is too strong a word, you are asking to remove religious philosophy from the rest of the philosophy. So I stand by that and everything else ive said on the subject, although my points are superseded by a point made by others: you could say the same thing about any philosophical discussion/topic on this forums. Hence my initial observation that you have no good reason to be calling for the “disappearing” of the religion sub forum.
Also, hilariously you use “abolish” in the title. You will have to forgive me for using the same term that you do. I repeat: get your head outta your ass.
Metaphysician UndercoverNovember 12, 2019 at 13:01#3515580 likes
Not least bcause even any discussion towards an agreement on terms seems impossible, never mind reasonable argument.
That is called "Platonic dialectics", where agreement on terms is not forthcoming. it might just be, that this type of philosophy is the heart and soul of the philosophy of religion. It is an acknowledgement of certain circumstances in the real world, where the prospect of working together from agreed upon principles, is not a reality. If you have no inclination to partake in the philosophy of religion, because it appears to you like irrational mumbo jumbo, then simply put your will power to practise and stay out of it.
PantagruelNovember 12, 2019 at 13:04#3515590 likes
I think philosophy should bend over backwards to be inclusive rather than exclusive. Poor argument is its own best censor.
It sounds as if some of you are attempting to ban "G/god" from this forum. But, once you try this, you will soon find how futile such an attempt can be - it will be equal to nothing less than trying to ban death from life! (Irrespective of your belief / non-belief in such a reality / non-reality.)
If I may say, you would be denying Philosophy itself by ignoring the first cause axiom's.
For instance, you would have no criteria to argue the domain's of epistemology, ontology, ethics, metaphysics and so forth. In other words, how/why does one argue the nature of those existing things(?).
Am I missing something? As other's have alluded, are you serious, joking, or trolling?
( Why not take that disdain [and energy] you have against Religion and do a specific thread on it instead?)
Deleted UserNovember 12, 2019 at 15:59#3516250 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserNovember 12, 2019 at 16:12#3516330 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
CiceronianusNovember 12, 2019 at 16:17#3516350 likes
i'm uncertain what "philosophy of religion" is, frankly (nor do I know what "philosophy of law" is, for that matter). While I think debating the existence of God is a waste of time, philosophy of religion may include other things and some of them may even be interesting.
1. How so? If you look at all the philosophical disciplines, God rears its head as part of the analysis. It is used as a typical antithesis or contrasting form of discourse. I didn't put it in there and neither did you; it's what we read in the aforementioned domain's, right?
2. A lot of different ways? Sure, but doesn't it all come back to the nature of existence?
3. I missed that thread you're alluding to, please share... .
Deleted UserNovember 12, 2019 at 17:12#3516550 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Indeed He does! But in ways that are by no means easily evident, intuitive, obvious, or well understood. And ultimately just these are worth laying out and laying bare for a scrutiny that can lead to a better understanding of the whole subject matter. But is it to be war or discourse? For too many of us, it's war. And that alone, it seems to me, is worth confronting.
Well notice I didn't say *ugly* 'head'. It rears its head for a reason.
That reason must convey some sort of 'universal' notion of cause that's associated with existence, right?
Why?
DingoJonesNovember 12, 2019 at 20:34#3517240 likes
My point/question is not rhetorical. The concept of God/causation is part of philosophical discourse whether we like it or not. Hence my question, why(?)
DingoJonesNovember 12, 2019 at 21:08#3517290 likes
I feel like I answered. Because people in the discourse believe in god. If they didnt...not so sure it would come up at all. Not like two atheists exploring an issue are going to offer up god as part of their arguments.
ValentinusNovember 12, 2019 at 21:51#3517430 likes
If the reason to remove the topic is because not enough people can form a consensus as to what it is, doesn't that same limit restrict the formulation of any plan to ban it?
The whole idea (in the first place) and truly going through with removing the area to not-so-serious stuff (as the lounge indicates) wouldn't be only a crazy thing, but would be an extremely sad event.
And very telling of what is happening to open discussion about Philosophy.
Six replies in a moderator already said "nah" to this idea, and it's a pretty ridiculous notion that such a traditionally major area of philosophy would be eliminated from a general philosophy forum. And I say that as a strong atheist who think that philosophy of religion doesn't deserve to be its own major area of philosophy: all the topics in it are really just ontological/epistemological or ethical topics associated with a certain category of worldview. Which also highlights how eliminating the subforum wouldn't do anything to eliminate the posts that bother people: arguments about whether God exists or faith is warranted would still be fit for the Metaphysics & Epistemology subforum, arguments about whether morality is connected to the commands of a God would still be fit for the Ethics subforums, etc. The same topics would just be scattered elsewhere.
Deleted UserNovember 12, 2019 at 22:25#3517590 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
DingoJonesNovember 12, 2019 at 22:34#3517630 likes
So according to you, none of what you said just there should be considered philosophy. That should all be moved to the lounge? Its just some superficial drivel not worthy of a real philosopher?
Lol, youre a strange dude. Throwing out some philosophy about a subject in a thread you made about how un-philosophical the subject is.
Deleted UserNovember 12, 2019 at 22:51#3517730 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserNovember 12, 2019 at 23:06#3517790 likes
I didn't realise that everything outside of religion couldn't possibly be dogmatic in any way!
Religion is fine in my opinion. Dogmatism and intolerance are much bigger problems in the world and they are pervasavive whether secular or non-secular ideology is being dogmatically followed despite contradictory arguments and facts in the pragmatic sense of true facts.
For example; all faiths have internal critics of the current status quo of religion. All faiths have cultural and geological influences which also diversify. To say that all versions of Islam or Christianity etc is just ignorance unless it comes with a good argument for condeming all religion. If the argument is "only religious people have the potential to do great harm" then The argument is just plain wrong. I'm agnostic in the purest sense of the word so I highly encourage you to research religions more thoroughly and look for Pros and Cons. Pros and Cons lists are essential to true and honest philosophical inquiry!
DingoJonesNovember 12, 2019 at 23:18#3517800 likes
Whether its the content or the posters or the topics is irrelevant, its just youre opinion. Thats not a good reason for doing what you suggest.
So now what your advocating is just allowing some people to discuss religion, those that you approve of? Lol
Maybe Im not being very charitable in how im reading you here, Ill give that some thought, but I dont think you understand the implications of what you are saying with the words you are using. You used the word “abolish” and took issue when I used the same word. Thats important, its the kind if thing you are doing consistently. It comes across as a bit dishonest.
DingoJonesNovember 12, 2019 at 23:25#3517820 likes
No ones claiming ONLY religious people have potential for great harm. Complete strawman, or tilting at windmills.
To your overall point, good men do good and evil men do evil but to get a good man to do evil it takes religion. Dogmatism and intolerance exist outside religion but only religion makes a virtue of them.
Deleted UserNovember 12, 2019 at 23:40#3517890 likes
but to get a good man to do evil it takes religion.
Me tilting at windmills? Says the person who seems to be attacking every imaginary being called a god right now..
Can you really not think of any examples where this isn't true? Seems like a completely ridiculous claim. Also, my first statement was clearly sarcasm and I never suggested anyone was claiming that. However the argumemt "its all religions fault" is just projection, accurate projection yes because a lot of religious practition is dogmatic. But If you take an outside perspective through alien anthropologist thought experiments, if humanity looks at all its behaviour as if it were a unified religion, all human behaviour could be perceived as dogmatic in some way depending in the human practicing the behaviour.
Many animals do horrible things to each other. All without a god telling them to do it as far as we can know. Acknowledging the animal within us all is the first step in the path to taming it. That's all I've got to say about that.
Maybe I'm missing your point. My point is that it's written into text books on Philosophy. It's intrinsic to the domain as it were.
Maybe my question should be posed to academia... .
Do you see my concern? In other words couldn't one make a case for God / causation being intrinsic to the so-called Human thought process? Otherwise, philosophy text's would exclude it and replace it with something else(?).
And so if that is part of your argument (I'm trying to understand your argument/concern) what - axiom or otherwise-should we replace it with?
DingoJonesNovember 13, 2019 at 00:30#3518120 likes
Hmmm, well I said religion, not god. So no tilting at windmills for me sir.
Also, i was referencing you saying “only religious people have the potential to do great harm”, not your opening sentence. I should have been more specific, sorry. (Although my point about windmills still stands, you even go on to do the exact same thing again...”its all religions fault”. No ones saying that so who are you arguing with?)
I do agree that dogmatism is a human thing, and I agree that acknowledging our primitive past is the first step in taming it.
Thats all you have to say...ok.
DingoJonesNovember 13, 2019 at 00:42#3518180 likes
Comments (60)
Not a hard task given Wikipedia.
Why do you want it closed?
From personal experience, it's people like you who make discussing the philosophy of religion difficult.
A disturbingly insane idea. There are lots of low quality phil of religion threads, of course, but you can't strong arm or wish-fulfill your way into the type of philosophical milieu you wish you existed in. The reality is that you exist in one where there's a large push (often from younger people) to ask these questions, albeit often poorly.
The more interesting question is why all these threads exist.
:cheer:
If not here, then where?
I do get what you are saying though. I find most of the religion/atheism threads to be boring and repetitive. However, I voted to keep the section, because for about a year, those posts did not bore me. I had thoughts and questions, and was surprised to see the positions of other people. But after reading and/or participating in many of those threads, I feel I have likely said/heard all the major points that can be made.
So while I agree that those threads can't go anywhere for those who are experienced in the discussion, they can be interesting and even informative to people who are new to philosophy (and I don't mean new to serious academic philosophy, I mean new to delving into questions like "is there a god?")
But I certainly understand your feelings that those threads are quite unproductive.
Yes, agreed, and based on my experience, let me emphasize that we should not even want a democracy in these matters. The populace should have no say whatsoever over the rules, let alone, be allowed to vote over them. I hate democracy, because I profoundly hate the stupidity and ignorance of the unwashed masses.
Vulgus, plebs imperitum ad deteriora promptum.
i vote to end all discussions on post modernism. But i won't get what i want. I feel this post by the OP is trolling.
Right, your opinion is duly noted but thats not a good reason to abolish the religion forum. Obviously people enjoy and participate in that forum, so get your head out of your ass. Your OP is a shameful move for anyone interested in philosophy and discourse, and an online community like this one.
Not at all. We've voted on things before. We used to be able to "like" posts but we voted to remove that.
Im aware that you asked for votes, and that you are very unlikely to bring about what you suggest. It is none the less shameful for anyone claiming an interest in philosophy and discourse, or for someone acting as part of a community to suggest or call for suppression or abolishment of topics/discourse they happen to dislike and/or get nothing out of themselves.
Also, it IS snobby to dismiss all those discussions and people as ignorant or unreasonable. Just because you have the foresight to bring that up before being accused of it doesnt mean your not doing it. Ridiculing religion and the religious is actually classic philosophical snobbery, and note I understand how well religion and the religious can make such snobbery not only easy but justified. Whats shameful isnt the snobbery, its the call you’ve made to satisfy your own sense of philosophical purity. It is a more unworthy act for a philosopher than chasing ones tail in a philosophy of religion forum, thats for sure.
So I say again, shame on you.
You could say the same thing about discussions elsewhere on the forum, with the same justification.
Quoting tim wood
Oh right, just as I thought. Your own recent thread in that forum didn't go to your liking, so you are lashing out against the forum. (I didn't look at it much, TBH - the premise for the discussion didn't look promising.)
Of course not. If you can't just 'be in the subforum and not of the subforum, then don't go slumming there. Besides, running of the bulls____ keeps rodeo clowns like me off the streets and out of saloons or houses of ill repute. Thank Great Googly Moogly! You sermonizing like this (instead of philosophizing), Rev. Tim, is just some old-time foolishness of the wise. :yawn:
[quote=Matthew 18:9]And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.[/quote]
:pray: Nah, flayers are good for the sole; let us prey ...
It's possible, to remove sections from your 'all discussions' page. I just have the religion section turned off, so I only go there knowing what I'm getting into.
That said, I think the decision to keep the Lounge off the public front page is a good one in terms of the kind of people it would be good have on board. We should present a more serious face, I think, and the plethora of stupid theism/atheism discussions are not helping. That said...
Quoting SophistiCat
...is the point. I don't mind the number of threads of (what I think of as) poor quality discussion (also some really good ones in the past have petered out, or deteriorated into garbage), but it would be nice to have something like the (lounge/not lounge) distinction for serious/not serious discussion. We could have a fairly simple rule that the discussion should be about some published paper, which participants should have read, that would be relatively incontestable (so not require a huge increase in moderator effort) and should clear out a lot of the garbage.
Why have a philosophy forum without religion? If i did the same thing in reverse i can guarantee you the OP would be taken down.
If this is the case, then all the more reason to discuss it.
It is clearly a vital issue. Get it out in the open.
Quoting tim wood
The evidence shows that there is a desire for such discussion. About various aspects of religion and spirituality. Clearly, it is possible. Why on earth should it be 'folded' ?
The philosophical perspective remains pertinent.
The mods are there to overview any problems.
If you have concerns about content, follow the guidance and let them do their job.
I don’t see how creating a bubble as to what can and cannot be brought into philosophical discussion would be helpful for anyone. That said specialised forums for ‘Ethics’ or ‘Philosophy of Science’ can be great too. There is a need for sites that look at the broader field of play just as there is for ones that look at the narrower field of play.
I was under the impression this was a forum that dealt with every aspect of philosophical discourse. Theology and the Philosophy of Religion are necessary parts of human activity and so I don’t see how it would help to cut them off?
That said it does help if people take their arguments up in the correct forum rather than spilling over into other areas. It will inevitably happen from time to time though.
in fact as I think of it, most threads seem to not meet the criteria of good philosophical discussion. People talk past each other. People cherry pick. People use straw man arguments. People insult. People go in circles and repeat arguments I have seen years ago.
Let's make the whole thing a Lounge.
(and yes, I know, there are likely differences of degree between subjects and I am being polemical, though that quality should fit in well in the thread.)
Asking for the “disappearing” of a sub forum, or having it “folded” elsewhere is asking for abolishment. You are removing it from the philosophical discourse and putting it somewhere that better suits your sensibilities. You are trying to eliminate religious Philosophical discussion from the rest of the philosophical discussions. I don’t think abolishment is too strong a word, you are asking to remove religious philosophy from the rest of the philosophy. So I stand by that and everything else ive said on the subject, although my points are superseded by a point made by others: you could say the same thing about any philosophical discussion/topic on this forums. Hence my initial observation that you have no good reason to be calling for the “disappearing” of the religion sub forum.
Also, hilariously you use “abolish” in the title. You will have to forgive me for using the same term that you do. I repeat: get your head outta your ass.
That is called "Platonic dialectics", where agreement on terms is not forthcoming. it might just be, that this type of philosophy is the heart and soul of the philosophy of religion. It is an acknowledgement of certain circumstances in the real world, where the prospect of working together from agreed upon principles, is not a reality. If you have no inclination to partake in the philosophy of religion, because it appears to you like irrational mumbo jumbo, then simply put your will power to practise and stay out of it.
Then however the poll goes that’s how it will be. Power to the people! :strong:
If I may say, you would be denying Philosophy itself by ignoring the first cause axiom's.
For instance, you would have no criteria to argue the domain's of epistemology, ontology, ethics, metaphysics and so forth. In other words, how/why does one argue the nature of those existing things(?).
Am I missing something? As other's have alluded, are you serious, joking, or trolling?
( Why not take that disdain [and energy] you have against Religion and do a specific thread on it instead?)
1. How so? If you look at all the philosophical disciplines, God rears its head as part of the analysis. It is used as a typical antithesis or contrasting form of discourse. I didn't put it in there and neither did you; it's what we read in the aforementioned domain's, right?
2. A lot of different ways? Sure, but doesn't it all come back to the nature of existence?
3. I missed that thread you're alluding to, please share... .
Well notice I didn't say *ugly* 'head'. It rears its head for a reason.
That reason must convey some sort of 'universal' notion of cause that's associated with existence, right?
Why?
No, it would only require belief in god not gods actual existence. Universally present believers would (and do) have the same effect.
My point/question is not rhetorical. The concept of God/causation is part of philosophical discourse whether we like it or not. Hence my question, why(?)
I feel like I answered. Because people in the discourse believe in god. If they didnt...not so sure it would come up at all. Not like two atheists exploring an issue are going to offer up god as part of their arguments.
And very telling of what is happening to open discussion about Philosophy.
So according to you, none of what you said just there should be considered philosophy. That should all be moved to the lounge? Its just some superficial drivel not worthy of a real philosopher?
Lol, youre a strange dude. Throwing out some philosophy about a subject in a thread you made about how un-philosophical the subject is.
Religion is fine in my opinion. Dogmatism and intolerance are much bigger problems in the world and they are pervasavive whether secular or non-secular ideology is being dogmatically followed despite contradictory arguments and facts in the pragmatic sense of true facts.
For example; all faiths have internal critics of the current status quo of religion. All faiths have cultural and geological influences which also diversify. To say that all versions of Islam or Christianity etc is just ignorance unless it comes with a good argument for condeming all religion. If the argument is "only religious people have the potential to do great harm" then The argument is just plain wrong. I'm agnostic in the purest sense of the word so I highly encourage you to research religions more thoroughly and look for Pros and Cons. Pros and Cons lists are essential to true and honest philosophical inquiry!
Whether its the content or the posters or the topics is irrelevant, its just youre opinion. Thats not a good reason for doing what you suggest.
So now what your advocating is just allowing some people to discuss religion, those that you approve of? Lol
Maybe Im not being very charitable in how im reading you here, Ill give that some thought, but I dont think you understand the implications of what you are saying with the words you are using. You used the word “abolish” and took issue when I used the same word. Thats important, its the kind if thing you are doing consistently. It comes across as a bit dishonest.
No ones claiming ONLY religious people have potential for great harm. Complete strawman, or tilting at windmills.
To your overall point, good men do good and evil men do evil but to get a good man to do evil it takes religion. Dogmatism and intolerance exist outside religion but only religion makes a virtue of them.
Me tilting at windmills? Says the person who seems to be attacking every imaginary being called a god right now..
Can you really not think of any examples where this isn't true? Seems like a completely ridiculous claim. Also, my first statement was clearly sarcasm and I never suggested anyone was claiming that. However the argumemt "its all religions fault" is just projection, accurate projection yes because a lot of religious practition is dogmatic. But If you take an outside perspective through alien anthropologist thought experiments, if humanity looks at all its behaviour as if it were a unified religion, all human behaviour could be perceived as dogmatic in some way depending in the human practicing the behaviour.
Many animals do horrible things to each other. All without a god telling them to do it as far as we can know. Acknowledging the animal within us all is the first step in the path to taming it. That's all I've got to say about that.
Maybe I'm missing your point. My point is that it's written into text books on Philosophy. It's intrinsic to the domain as it were.
Maybe my question should be posed to academia... .
Do you see my concern? In other words couldn't one make a case for God / causation being intrinsic to the so-called Human thought process? Otherwise, philosophy text's would exclude it and replace it with something else(?).
And so if that is part of your argument (I'm trying to understand your argument/concern) what - axiom or otherwise-should we replace it with?
Hmmm, well I said religion, not god. So no tilting at windmills for me sir.
Also, i was referencing you saying “only religious people have the potential to do great harm”, not your opening sentence. I should have been more specific, sorry. (Although my point about windmills still stands, you even go on to do the exact same thing again...”its all religions fault”. No ones saying that so who are you arguing with?)
I do agree that dogmatism is a human thing, and I agree that acknowledging our primitive past is the first step in taming it.
Thats all you have to say...ok.
I dont know how else to put it other than what ive already said, sorry.