The Site's Comment Filter

Obviously, @ibrust, your experiences and sets of beliefs and mine diverge, just as we both diverge from Dio's ideas of reality. However, what struck me forcibly was our similarities in some respects as well as our mutual dislike for bullying.

I have yet to read your posts in detail but I shall do so. I've earmarked today as a work day, however.

Although I'm not a believer in the sense that you are, there are various arguments against the type of beliefs you hold and which I don't, which fail to stand up. One of those is the supposed Argument From Evil, in that "why should evil be condoned by an all-powerful ruler etc?" "Why is it allowed to exist?" There is no inherent, logical opposition, however, within such beliefs. Those arguing against, such as maybe Bertrand Russell etc, fail to place themselves in the position of the person they're arguing with. Such arguments as they use are superficial and designed to win over those who accept what they say without question and who cannot imagine WHY their arguments fail or even that there may be any reality in which they might fail. Logical positivism, for that and similar reasons, is not considered to be a true, philosophical treatise. It's more like a rather shallow claim. Likewise, Russell himself is not considered to be a philosopher by many. He was a logician and an apologist for the limited views he held.

Before anyone criticises too hastily, I should point out that I have an honours degree in philosophy and I understand the arguments for and against what I'm suggesting reasonably well.

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.

What's a philosophy major?

Sure, most students may struggle to think for themselves but nevertheless, it's an excellent training for debating and more than that.

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

a) the entire point of the rule against discussing religion / politics (however ill conceived) is to maintain a friendly atmosphere free of heated debates. You're engaged with 3 different people in this thread in antagonistic debates, and you've sought out / stoked these debates very intentionally. You've also made personal attacks directed at all 3 of these people. Infact, you even maintain a long list of quotes from certain people on this forum just to repost in conversations like these, and you did that earlier in this thread. You do this to try to humiliate certain people (unknowingly you're just helping them make their own case, but I digress). That behavior alone seems like it should be a bannable offense, it's clearly a form of harassment, and it's also kind of stalkerish. Now, I don't mind debating you, and I prefer not bringing mods into situations like this, but since you've decided to bring them in... seems to me if anyone should be banned it's you, actually.

If it were just 1 person, or maybe 2, you could say you weren't part of the problem. But I'm impressed you've managed to antagonize 3 people at the same time.

b) throughout the whole thread you've been making atheistic arguments while claiming to be a deist. The fact atheism isn't a formal religion doesn't make your argument not of a religious nature, nor does this mean you are not engaging in a religious debate.

I've said before you're a person who clings to the letter of the law while ignoring / even undermining the actual intent of it. Here in this thread we see yet another prime example of such behavior. It's an abuse of rules which twists them to serve your own perverse ends, but again, typical manager type behavior.

Except that I "argued for" neither. You asked me repeatedly to give you some kind of answer, and I did, without breaking any guidelines. The word deist would never have been uttered if you hadn't asked, then begged for it. You are the only person to bring up atheism, in a laughable attempt to put up a strawman that didn't stand.

I could say "keep trying", but it's insipid.

You foist your assumptions on not just me, but apparently every "manager" worldwide...if you are not a teenager, then I feel sorry for you to be this angst-ridden at your age.

ibrust, what Dio is saying regarding discussing the subject that cannot be named is largely correct.

I sometimes engage with theological ideas without using the normal vocabuary. Be careful, because although a thread used for theological purposes does not get people muted or banned (normally) it will get the thread closed by zealously believing mods.

Also those you are arguing with are perfectly capable of reporting threads and getting them closed down, even when they have started the discussions and have engaged in them. They've done it before and no doubt they will do it again.

One little thing about belief is that I do consider atheism to be a belief, just as many things are beliefs. I know we have Dawkins and co. claiming it isn't a belief but he's entirely wrong and could never win a debate about it. For that matter, Dawkins is not an atheist. He's agnostic, which is also a belief, the way he interprets it, since he thinks in terms of "should" rather than an acceptance of lack of knowledge. It's a rather perfidious belief system which promotes the outmoded logical positivist ideology.

I've no desire atm to discuss these things and certainly not to convince anyone of my views. It's just in case anyone is getting confused or would like to understand what's been written.

Reading this thread is more complicated than learning all of sicilian opening theory

Wish I knew what a philosophy major is. I assume it's some kind of army officer?

re @Optimissed: You describe a very unique form of atheism, one which at least is well thought through. I find it surprising but compelling that someone as keenly aware of the mental aspect of reality as you could still be an atheist. The closest thing I can think of to your beliefs is perhaps Daoism or Buddhism. Do you vaguely identify with either of those? You mentioned going on a trek through India back when you worked all this out for yourself.

When I say God what I believe I'm referring to is the identity of reality. There's a cognitive aspect to reality, as you've acknowledged... the mind is a powerful thing... infact, the universe can be thought of as one giant mind. And I think Hinduism sort of looks at it this way. As humans, we have limited perception, we're not in a position to ascertain the powers of that mind. It can do things no normal scientist is going to be able to imagine. But we are localized images of God, in that we're part of reality and reflect its structure and nature, in this sense God maps himself into us. But we're not equivalent to God because we're localized. We don't have the same global perception and global cognition that God has. And so, in response to this idea that we are God, I think I would say that it wrongfully attributes the existence of reality to the self. I think there is this divine aspect to the self - I would call that the soul - and this aspect is consciously accessible, however... we also have to contend with our limitations, and the fact we exist in bodies, in material reality, the fact we have a purpose here we must fulfill... etc. And I think we have to maintain some humility over what we can do and how big we are in the grand scheme. On the other hand... in a sense you could say God is walking the earth every day in the form of those who are in touch with him, in touch with this divine aspect of consciousness.