Philosophy Now Forum Suggestions Box

[attofishpi]

SUGGESTION

Can we pleeeaaase have an <embed> tag facility to embed utube videos into the actual post rather than just a URL link?

[reasonvemotion]

I will second that!

[attofishpi]

Hahaha! - ya u jogged my memory re the matter!

[popeye1945]

I wonder would it be possible for believers to identify themselves upfront, in many dialogues, it is an exercise in futility trying to discuss things when they already have the answer for themselves, the magic man in the sky did it. It is a waste of energy on both sides.

[Age]

I wonder would it be possible for believers to identify themselves upfront, in many dialogues, it is an exercise in futility trying to discuss things when they already have the answer for themselves, the magic man in the sky did it. It is a waste of energy on both sides.

Will the DISBELIEVERS out "themselves" upfront ALSO?

If no, then WHY NOT?

It is, by the way, it is, literally, futile trying to discuss 'things' with BOTH BELIEVERS and DISBELIEVERS, as BOTH of 'you' BELIEVE 'you' have "the answer", no matter what "answer" that is.

[popeye1945]

Age,

The devil made me say it!----LOL!!!!

[henry quirk]

I wonder would it be possible for believers to identify themselves upfront, in many dialogues, it is an exercise in futility trying to discuss things when they already have the answer for themselves, the magic man in the sky did it. It is a waste of energy on both sides.

I have two responses, popeye: pick the one you favor most...

-----

A

Likewise: can all atheists, amoralists, determinists, socialists, etc. identify themselves upfront? Often, it's a waste of time -- mine and theirs -- to converse or debate with them cuz they already have the answer and will admit no other view.

Even better: everyone ought post lengthy essays at the beginning of each post layin' out his or her or their or its preferred philosophies (along with preferred pronouns, of course).

Even better: each forum member ought have his own sub-forum wherein he can exercise absolute control. In this way, the, for example, nonbeliever can silence the believer, and vice versa.

Or, and this an oddball idea, I'm sure: we can do the dirty work of figurin' the other guy's game in actual conversation and debate. Where we find a brick wall, we can stop beatin' our heads against it and go talk to someone else. As I say, I know it's an oddball idea: wadin' thru paragraphs instead quickly consultin' a label. But, labor-intensive as it is, it might be worth a shot.

-----

B

You first.

[popeye1945]

I believe a simple statement indicating one's belief in the supernatural is not unreasonable, if this is offensive, then I would gladly identify myself as an unbeliever in the realm of the supernatural, no problem. I would be most pleased if those who live in that supernatural castle avoided me. Why stay in the closet, its rather deceptive.

[henry quirk]

I...gladly identify myself as an unbeliever in the realm of the supernatural.

Personal pronouns, please...and political bent...and favorite flavor of ice cream.

I would be most pleased if those who live in that supernatural castle avoided me.

As a deist, I'm happy to oblige you.

Why stay in the closet, its rather deceptive.

Same can be said for all the atheists, amoralists, determinists, socialists, etc. who don't declare themselves upfront...like you, for example.

[Immanuel Can]

I believe a simple statement indicating one's belief in the supernatural is not unreasonable, if this is offensive, then I would gladly identify myself as an unbeliever in the realm of the supernatural, no problem. I would be most pleased if those who live in that supernatural castle avoided me. Why stay in the closet, its rather deceptive.

It's not a matter of "being in the closet" at all. Any sincere person is going to speak from his/her own worldview, and assume that it's the truth until further evidence appears. Why would a person declare at the start something like, "Well, I believe there is no such thing as morality, but I'm speaking only as an Atheist," or "I believe abortion is morally wrong, but the only reason I think so is because I'm a Theist"?

That would be silly. If there is such a thing as morality, and if abortion is wrong, then these things are true regardless of the ideological orientation of the person claiming them. One takes a particular ideological orientation because one thinks it reflects the truth; and there really is no other good reason.

If you can't handle talking to ordinary people, then I make a recommendation for you: find a nice Atheist echo-chamber, and self-congratulate as much as you like there. Here, multiple viewpoints are welcome, and nobody is required to apologize for what they believe to be true, so long as they sincerely believe it and are willing to present their reasons.

But as for people who won't talk to a certain subset that doubts their premises, and won't talk regardless of their reasons, why are they even here? The echo-chamber is available elsewhere.

[popeye1945]

They are taking about something real.

[popeye1945]

Science does not deal with that which is unfalsifiable because it is not science. I think philosophy should not deal with the unfalsifiable for the same reason, it is not philosophy--- let's put all the present gods on the shelve with Zeus.