The Site's Comment Filter

Not to anyone observant enough. Organized religion is not the same as basic belief in a creator.

If you made any scientifically testable claims, then I guess I must have missed them. I did see you namedropping some other people's work, but I am not inclined to take your guidance on who to dig into, for obvious reasons.

I am not going to watch junk you like from YouTube. Far too much of that in the science threads already.

Your neverending need to attempt to explain (rather like mansplaining) things because you assume only you understand them is one of the clearest signs of your self-centeredness.

I'm not even going to dignify it, other than to say that I am a Deist only at the most fundamental level. That is, creation, once set in motion, ethically cannot be touched/interfered with. As for your subjective definition, I think some Googling or ChapGPT research is in order.

Now perhaps the both of you could stop trying to break the forum guidelines just because you dislike me sooo intensely. It's unethical and immoral, ergo hypocritical.

This has got to be the biggest yapfest I've laid eyes on...

You probably don't get around much then. Go to some board arguing about football (any kind) or something. You will see people arguing incessantly for up to 2 weeks (before and after games) about events that matter not one iota. For playoffs/championships even longer.

I was talking about in the chess forums, sorry for not clarifying. The fact I had to scroll for a few seconds is crazy.

It's not that crazy historically, though it definitely stands out in the age of texting and TikTok.

Yeah, thank god TikTok is getting banned, shortening everyone and their mom's attention span. I know that is not why it's getting banned but it helps.

That's not a done deal yet. Without getting into it, there's somebody who wants it to stick around now because TikTok helped them a couple of months ago.

It is indeed a flawed condition, but it's a condition you have contrived, and it undermines the notion of free will. But furthermore... it's based in a misunderstanding of what divine judgment is and what it means. But I don't completely blame you here, because there's alot of cultural confusion on this topic. 
For example, I'm sure you have in mind the popular idea of hell as the consequence of righteous judgment, flames and so fourth. If you were to read the Old testament in its original Hebrew you'd find there is no word for hell in Hebrew. There's also no lucid description of hell in the Old Testament. Infact, in all places in the text you'd find the word "Sheol" used instead... this is a Hebrew word which means, essentially, nothingness. In other words, those who die and aren't redeemed are done away with and they exist no more, according to the Jewish theology. And this is the concept practicing Jews still have today, along with Jahovas witnesses, some Pentacostles, Mormons, and a few other sects.

In other words... it's the fate an atheist already believes to be his own, and the fate of a turtle made into soup. It's that fate you already believe you have, due to the conditions of existence and nature itself, which you're unknowingly railing against now.

But the Jews view on divine judgment is actually an optimistic one - it says there's an alternative - spiritual ascension and the persistence of ones soul.

Ironically I'm actually making a mostly deistic argument again here, as I've been doing throughout this conversation (which I often do for secular audiences), and you've been rejecting the arguments in a dogmatic fashion while claiming to be a deist.

Oh really - so let's imagine you have a mother and a son, and the son is alcoholic. The mother naturally wants to save her son, as is the desire and the duty of any parent. Of course she loves her son, as all parents do. And she wants to make him "like her" in a sense - not an alcoholic. Now, by what deluded logic is the mothers desire to save her son a form of arrogance here?

Obviously it isn't... because she isn't motivated by arrogance, alcoholism is a self destructive condition, and the mothers desire is natural and morally justified. I can construct many other similar scenarios that make the same point - for acts of kindness toward homeless people, for laws against things like prostitution or drug use (presuming to protect citizens)... for making a moral argument in the hopes of convincing anyone of it.

It's nonsensical to criticize the very act of saving someone - for your statement here to make any sense you'd have to criticize the Christian morality specifically. But you haven't actually done that anywhere. As for whether a religious person could be saving someone... well, that depends on whether you believe God is a basis of ethics, or not (though God also created nature, and there's a concept of natural law you must contend with as well. Still trying to figure out how you're a deist). As usual you make no substantive argument.

On the other hand, railing against and lamenting the conditions of existence, that does seem to me like great arrogance. It also doesn't seem very deistic...

This isn't a yapfest it's a yap factory

We've come a long way, from D*ck to dogma.

Me not understanding half the vocabulary 🗿

Average philosophy major arguments be like

Trying to get some sleep in a creepy thread.

Yes, and with the last long ibrust diatribe, your thread is clearly in violation of forum guidelines. I suppose this is probably the outcome that you wanted/expected. Engaging in it meaningfully to promote it further, ala Optimissed, is also a violation even if he avoids directly violating content.

Merely stating an opinion is not engaging in debate, which is what is against the forum guidelines. Debating is your specialty, is it not? If the forum has moved outside of the guidelines, that's because it's where you want it to be, not me.

That's an interesting take since I have, more than once just in the past 24 hours, refused to engage when prompted to do so. Debate for its own sake is not my specialty. You won't see me claiming to be "the best debater on Facebook" two years before it was released to the public. I just happen to be observant and logical enough to point out when some posters are full of it and/or being disingenuous, as you are being with this entire "protest" thread. You know how to posture well enough, ala some other posters, but like them, the posturing is mostly empty meandering around in a feeling of malcontent.

More typical manager type behavior - i.e. the moment he realizes he's lost the debate he defaults to calling for the mods... this is despite the fact he clearly was engaging in the debate himself, even making a religious argument at multiple points. Infact... he's been much more engaged in debate than Optimissed throughout this thread, he's been stoking it for pages, and yet he's calling for Optimissed to be targetted... Seems like an abuse of the very idea of "rules", doesn't it? But that's what these types do, folks.

Delusional content bolded.

It very clear who is stoking the religious debate here. It's you. Not sure why you want to pawn it off on Optimissed when I clearly stated you were the main offender, but that Optimissed was also violating guidelines by answering at length.

Your attempt to paint "debate" in general as the violation is transparent. The violation is when you purposefully took a deep dive in a religious diatribe right after I said I would not discuss religion other than at the most surface level and only as it relates to the topic itself. You asked questions about why I held my views, and give you basic high level answers without breaking guidelines.

You apparently don't see (or admit to seeing, anyway) the difference between someone who is clearly trying to follow guidelines and yourself trying to break them and get others to follow you. You seem to have things backwards...you follow the Pied Piper, not the other way around.

Hello