Guidelines and Roundtable Discussion: please read

[aliantha]

Nah, it's all the same world and it revolves around me. I'm very dense and have a great deal of mass.

Boy, if ever a comment cried out for a punch line... <ali clamps hand over mouth>

[Damelon]

...but the world does not revolve around me....

At the risk of going off topic, I must disagree. The world does revolve around you. And around me. And around everyone else. It's just a different world for everybody.

--A

Nah, it's all the same world and it revolves around me. I'm very dense and have a great deal of mass.

That's why the wind blows towards the U.K.

[rusmeister]

I would like to add something to Syl's original guidelines, given that I, too, have become recently aware of some people avoiding the Close due to reasons other than lack of interest:

Please do not derail threads, whether it is to prove your point, to change the topic, or any other reasons. It is very easy when talking about one's beliefs to attempt and inject them into any thread about philosophy and religion - for example, if discussing a particular little-known religion, presenting one's own to show similarities or differences. These derailings, though, eventually lead to entirely different discussions which may have little to do with the original thread topic. If, when discussing a particular topic, you absolutely cannot resist derailing it, create a new thread about this instead of adding to the old one.

Also, due to the volatile nature of the topics discussed in the Close, I will reiterate a very important statement: please be respectful of other people's views at all time, and avoid personal attacks (whether blunt or subtle). The Close is a forum where everyone should be considered on equal grounds: it is not right to bash other people's beliefs, and it is not right to claim moral superiority, regardless of whether you personally believe you know the truth, or not. Treat others with respect, whether they be Christians, atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Jews, Pastafarianists, and so on. Please understand that the mods will not hesitate in stepping in if they feel that someone is clearly attacking another member's beliefs (unless said member specifically asked for a challenge...).

Xar, it looks like the upshot of what you are saying here that nobody can possibly be right or claim to be right. Is that the case?

I'm asking because I see a clear distinction between personal attacks (attacks on people as individuals) and dispute of beliefs, which is the question of what is truth. Like everyone else, I think a policy that does not permit personal attacks to be good. But if you do not make that distinction, if you say that the pre-determined position of the moderators is that there is no truth, that there can be no such thing, for example, as weak or mistaken philosophy, then there is no way to or point in discussing these questions. If there is no truth then there is no way to learn anything.

[Avatar]

Destroy the ego! Destroy the ego! You ego-centric bastard!!!!

Can't dispute that I'm ego-centric. This is where I divert from the buddhists ect. I think that if you destroy the ego, then nothing is left. I am my ego...no ego, no me.

--A

[Xar]

I would like to add something to Syl's original guidelines, given that I, too, have become recently aware of some people avoiding the Close due to reasons other than lack of interest:

Please do not derail threads, whether it is to prove your point, to change the topic, or any other reasons. It is very easy when talking about one's beliefs to attempt and inject them into any thread about philosophy and religion - for example, if discussing a particular little-known religion, presenting one's own to show similarities or differences. These derailings, though, eventually lead to entirely different discussions which may have little to do with the original thread topic. If, when discussing a particular topic, you absolutely cannot resist derailing it, create a new thread about this instead of adding to the old one.

Also, due to the volatile nature of the topics discussed in the Close, I will reiterate a very important statement: please be respectful of other people's views at all time, and avoid personal attacks (whether blunt or subtle). The Close is a forum where everyone should be considered on equal grounds: it is not right to bash other people's beliefs, and it is not right to claim moral superiority, regardless of whether you personally believe you know the truth, or not. Treat others with respect, whether they be Christians, atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Jews, Pastafarianists, and so on. Please understand that the mods will not hesitate in stepping in if they feel that someone is clearly attacking another member's beliefs (unless said member specifically asked for a challenge...).

Xar, it looks like the upshot of what you are saying here that nobody can possibly be right or claim to be right. Is that the case?

I'm asking because I see a clear distinction between personal attacks (attacks on people as individuals) and dispute of beliefs, which is the question of what is truth. Like everyone else, I think a policy that does not permit personal attacks to be good. But if you do not make that distinction, if you say that the pre-determined position of the moderators is that there is no truth, that there can be no such thing, for example, as weak or mistaken philosophy, then there is no way to or point in discussing these questions. If there is no truth then there is no way to learn anything.

I would disagree on this, rus... I didn't say "there is no truth", I simply said that one should not fall into the mistake of saying or implying "my truth is the real one, and whoever doesn't agree with me is wrong". Even if one personally believes that his or her beliefs are 110% "on the spot", so to say, that doesn't necessarily mean a) that it's true, and b) that others share that opinion. And make no mistake, when it comes to religion and philosophy, given the lack of objective and irrevocable proof of one religion's truthfulness over the other(s) - if any - no one can state "My beliefs are right and yours are wrong". As a mod in this forum, my job is to make sure that everyone is welcomed equally and TREATED equally in these discussions; the moment one poster takes on high moral ground on the basis that "my religion is the one true religion", this is no longer the case and it does not lead to a healthy debate, only to a heated one. Especially because belief (or lack of belief) is such a personal topic, which people feel strongly about, it's important for everyone to respect all other beliefs here (and as such, not to imply they are wrong by claiming one's beliefs are the true ones). As a mod, I'd like to see this applied equally to everyone no matter their beliefs: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Manicheaism, Shintoism and so on.

That said, of one was absolutely sure one's beliefs are right, and wanted to show how he or she can defuse any argument against them (and proving them right to all others), it's always possible to make a specific thread for that - but it should be clearly labeled so that people know, going in, that within that thread, someone WILL challenge their beliefs in order to prove his or her beliefs are true.

[wayfriend]

I have to agree with Rus, in so far as: there are beliefs which do in fact take the position that their truth is the real truth and whoever doesn't agree is wrong. If you're discussing religion, you're banning a fair number of actual religious positions with those kinds of rules.

IMO, religious discussions are going to include statements that say, everyone who doesn't agree with that is going to hell, etc. etc. Its part of the terrain of the discourse.

It doesn't mean we can't be civil, or refrain from being insulting.

I'd suggest that the proper way to handle things here in the close is not to prevent people from stating whose religious position is right or wrong. But to discuss them in a way where we don't address posters as examples of any particular belief.

Let "Christians are all wrong" stand. But "Frank, your a Christian so you're wrong" is crossing the line.

Keep the discussions at arms length. Don't make them personal. And for the rest, get used to the idea that other people think you're going to hell for what you believe, learn to live with it.

[Avatar]

Since I think they're all wrong about that, it's never bothered me.

--A

[rusmeister]

Since I think they're all wrong about that, it's never bothered me.

--A

Hey, Avatar, I think they're wrong about that, too.

[rusmeister]

I would like to add something to Syl's original guidelines, given that I, too, have become recently aware of some people avoiding the Close due to reasons other than lack of interest:

Please do not derail threads, whether it is to prove your point, to change the topic, or any other reasons. It is very easy when talking about one's beliefs to attempt and inject them into any thread about philosophy and religion - for example, if discussing a particular little-known religion, presenting one's own to show similarities or differences. These derailings, though, eventually lead to entirely different discussions which may have little to do with the original thread topic. If, when discussing a particular topic, you absolutely cannot resist derailing it, create a new thread about this instead of adding to the old one.

Also, due to the volatile nature of the topics discussed in the Close, I will reiterate a very important statement: please be respectful of other people's views at all time, and avoid personal attacks (whether blunt or subtle). The Close is a forum where everyone should be considered on equal grounds: it is not right to bash other people's beliefs, and it is not right to claim moral superiority, regardless of whether you personally believe you know the truth, or not. Treat others with respect, whether they be Christians, atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Jews, Pastafarianists, and so on. Please understand that the mods will not hesitate in stepping in if they feel that someone is clearly attacking another member's beliefs (unless said member specifically asked for a challenge...).

Xar, it looks like the upshot of what you are saying here that nobody can possibly be right or claim to be right. Is that the case?

I'm asking because I see a clear distinction between personal attacks (attacks on people as individuals) and dispute of beliefs, which is the question of what is truth. Like everyone else, I think a policy that does not permit personal attacks to be good. But if you do not make that distinction, if you say that the pre-determined position of the moderators is that there is no truth, that there can be no such thing, for example, as weak or mistaken philosophy, then there is no way to or point in discussing these questions. If there is no truth then there is no way to learn anything.

I would disagree on this, rus... I didn't say "there is no truth", I simply said that one should not fall into the mistake of saying or implying "my truth is the real one, and whoever doesn't agree with me is wrong". Even if one personally believes that his or her beliefs are 110% "on the spot", so to say, that doesn't necessarily mean a) that it's true, and b) that others share that opinion. And make no mistake, when it comes to religion and philosophy, given the lack of objective and irrevocable proof of one religion's truthfulness over the other(s) - if any - no one can state "My beliefs are right and yours are wrong". As a mod in this forum, my job is to make sure that everyone is welcomed equally and TREATED equally in these discussions; the moment one poster takes on high moral ground on the basis that "my religion is the one true religion", this is no longer the case and it does not lead to a healthy debate, only to a heated one. Especially because belief (or lack of belief) is such a personal topic, which people feel strongly about, it's important for everyone to respect all other beliefs here (and as such, not to imply they are wrong by claiming one's beliefs are the true ones). As a mod, I'd like to see this applied equally to everyone no matter their beliefs: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Manicheaism, Shintoism and so on.

That said, of one was absolutely sure one's beliefs are right, and wanted to show how he or she can defuse any argument against them (and proving them right to all others), it's always possible to make a specific thread for that - but it should be clearly labeled so that people know, going in, that within that thread, someone WILL challenge their beliefs in order to prove his or her beliefs are true.

I'd just point out here that you are imposing your own philosophy and implicitly making it superior to those that disagree with you - that you DO see your view to be right and ARE applying it to deny the claims of the 'absolutists' (vis-a-vis the 'relativists')

Again, I and the other absolutists here also call for fair and civil treatment of all, and think that should not be mixed with their worldviews. They are two separate issues. So respecting the beliefs of others should mean being polite and civil in disagreeing, not denying a right to disagree altogether. If people believe that their worldview really IS true and does impact others, they should not be discriminated against for politely and reasonably saying so.

[Seven Words]

rus--

I think the point is people should be more careful to differentiate what they BELIEVE to be true and not represent their subjective opinion (sans objective proof) as demonstrated fact. "I believe my faith is the only true one, and all adherents of other faiths will languish in eternal torment" and admitting that there is no evidence supporting that assertion beyond the faith's own dogmas and texts would (if I'm understanding the gist of his post right) be OK. "I follow the only true God" and denying there IS said lack of objective proof is the sort of thing that is a problem.

He is insisting on intellectual honesty....assertions of fact MUST have objective proof.

[rusmeister]

rus--

I think the point is people should be more careful to differentiate what they BELIEVE to be true and not represent their subjective opinion (sans objective proof) as demonstrated fact. "I believe my faith is the only true one, and all adherents of other faiths will languish in eternal torment" and admitting that there is no evidence supporting that assertion beyond the faith's own dogmas and texts would (if I'm understanding the gist of his post right) be OK. "I follow the only true God" and denying there IS said lack of objective proof is the sort of thing that is a problem.

He is insisting on intellectual honesty....assertions of fact MUST have objective proof.

I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, SW, and admit that there have been several times (and I do mean several, with no irony) that I have made statements based on faith without other support - although in nearly all other cases I think what may have seemed to be a lack of support simply means the difficulty or even impossibility of expressing that support here. It's the "How do you compress the experience of forty or fifty years into a few posts?" that most of us experience at one time or another.

To get to objective proof, we have to agree that there IS an objective, and that is the first difficulty. Those of us who believe admit from the outset that faith cannot be objectively proved - it can only be defended.

I do agree on intellectual honesty, as well, of course.

[Loredoctor]

To get to objective proof, we have to agree that there IS an objective, and that is the first difficulty. Those of us who believe admit from the outset that faith cannot be objectively proved - it can only be defended.

But you're the one using the term 'truth' all of the time. It appears to me that you already believe you have objective proof, otherwise how can you claim truth? If faith cannot be objectively proven, then that implies there is no certainty.

[rusmeister]

To get to objective proof, we have to agree that there IS an objective, and that is the first difficulty. Those of us who believe admit from the outset that faith cannot be objectively proved - it can only be defended.

But you're the one using the term 'truth' all of the time. It appears to me that you already believe you have objective proof, otherwise how can you claim truth? If faith cannot be objectively proven, then that implies there is no certainty.

The elements of faith that are dependent on personal experience and choice may be objective, yet unproveable. We cannot prove love between friends and family members to third parties, yet it can be proven objectively to our satisfaction by the interactions between them over time. It is neither subjective, nor imaginary. My mother loves me, and I can offer a great deal of evidence that she does, but that evidence would not constitute proof for you.

The certainty comes from choice. As I accumulate experience and knowledge over time, I make choices - including choices about faith. Of course, certainty can be shaken - but it is our duty to train the habit of faith when we are clear-headed, so that when emotional blows come down - it is emotion, not reason, that generally leads people away from faith - we are as prepared as we can be to withstand the blows of life and maintain our certainty.

"If we wish to be rational, not now and then, but constantly, we must pray for the gift of faith, for the power to go on believing not in the teeth of reason but in the teeth of lust and terror and jealousy and boredom and indifference that which reason, authority, or experience, or all three, have once delivered to us for truth."

The Problem of Pain - C.S. Lewis (Pg. 31)

(This bonus quote is just plain fun, imo:)

"What would really satisfy us would be a God who said anything we happened to like doing, what does it matter so long as they are contented? We want, in fact, not so much a Father in Heaven as a grandfather in heaven - a senile benevolence who, as they say, liked to see young people enjoying themselves, and whose plan for the universe was simply that it might be truly said at the end of each day, a good time was had by all."

(ibid)

But this is kind of drifting off topic, imo... (we could take this up in one of the other threads... )

[Loredoctor]

The elements of faith that are dependent on personal experience and choice may be objective, yet unproveable.

I might add, "may be objective" in your eyes. It's not objective to me, which means it is really subjective. From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "The terms “objectivity” and “subjectivity,” in their modern usage, generally relate to a perceiving subject (normally a person) and a perceived or unperceived object. The object is something that presumably exists independent of the subject’s perception of it. In other words, the object would “be there,” as it is, even if no subject perceived it. Hence, objectivity is typically associated with ideas such as reality, truth and reliability." How can your beliefs - or the support for your beliefs be objective when they are dependent on the internal, rather than the external? For instance, Christians and Muslims both can claim objectivity, but who is more correct or right? It seems in this instance, and many others, what is at work is the individuals choice to believe (given that the support for the belief does not exist external to the individual - if it did, one would clearly be correct and invalidate the other's belief) since belief varies with individuals, even cultures.

We cannot prove love between friends and family members to third parties, yet it can be proven objectively to our satisfaction by the interactions between them over time. It is neither subjective, nor imaginary. My mother loves me, and I can offer a great deal of evidence that she does, but that evidence would not constitute proof for you.

It's one thing to argue for the reality of a construct (love) another thing entirely to suggest that your analogy is equivalent to belief in a higher power (God). There is daily evidence, as perceived by the individual ('I feel loved'), that he or she is loved. However, I would certainly agree with the notion that you perceive being loved, because the construct of love has concurrent validity - there are external signs that it exists (someone saying they love you, monetary gestures or gifts, affectionate behaviour) (however, the cynic in me does not believe in love). There is no such thing occurring for God - nothing for me to evaluate your experiences as truth. The same way you do not evaluate an Animist or follower of Islam as experiencing truth.

[rusmeister]

The elements of faith that are dependent on personal experience and choice may be objective, yet unproveable.

I might add, "may be objective" in your eyes. It's not objective to me, which means it is really subjective. From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "The terms “objectivity” and “subjectivity,” in their modern usage, generally relate to a perceiving subject (normally a person) and a perceived or unperceived object. The object is something that presumably exists independent of the subject’s perception of it. In other words, the object would “be there,” as it is, even if no subject perceived it. Hence, objectivity is typically associated with ideas such as reality, truth and reliability." How can your beliefs - or the support for your beliefs be objective when they are dependent on the internal, rather than the external? For instance, Christians and Muslims both can claim objectivity, but who is more correct or right? It seems in this instance, and many others, what is at work is the individuals choice to believe (given that the support for the belief does not exist external to the individual - if it did, one would clearly be correct and invalidate the other's belief) since belief varies with individuals, even cultures.

We cannot prove love between friends and family members to third parties, yet it can be proven objectively to our satisfaction by the interactions between them over time. It is neither subjective, nor imaginary. My mother loves me, and I can offer a great deal of evidence that she does, but that evidence would not constitute proof for you.

It's one thing to argue for the reality of a construct (love) another thing entirely to suggest that your analogy is equivalent to belief in a higher power (God). There is daily evidence, as perceived by the individual ('I feel loved'), that he or she is loved. However, I would certainly agree with the notion that you perceive being loved, because the construct of love has concurrent validity - there are external signs that it exists (someone saying they love you, monetary gestures or gifts, affectionate behaviour) (however, the cynic in me does not believe in love). There is no such thing occurring for God - nothing for me to evaluate your experiences as truth. The same way you do not evaluate an Animist or follower of Islam as experiencing truth.

It might be simpler to assert that, say, in my teens a girl once turned me down when I invited her on a date. I can't prove that to you, but it was an objective event, and that's pretty much what I mean.

[Loredoctor]

It might be simpler to assert that, say, in my teens a girl once turned me down when I invited her on a date. I can't prove that to you, but it was an objective event, and that's pretty much what I mean.

Simpler, but still an incorrect analogy. It's an event that is believable because it is easily proven; you could have the girl verify your story or somebody else. We all experience that sort of thing, so it's taken for granted that the event occurred. I do not think that belief in a god is in any way equivalent.

Regardless, we are going off topic. This debate would be better suited in its own thread.

[rusmeister]

It might be simpler to assert that, say, in my teens a girl once turned me down when I invited her on a date. I can't prove that to you, but it was an objective event, and that's pretty much what I mean.

Simpler, but still an incorrect analogy. It's an event that is believable because it is easily proven; you could have the girl verify your story or somebody else. We all experience that sort of thing, so it's taken for granted that the event occurred. I do not think that belief in a god is in any way equivalent.

Regardless, we are going off topic. This debate would be better suited in its own thread.

At last, we agree on something!!!

[Fist and Faith]

Hey! Check me out! I'm green now! Heh. Meaning I'm a mod now, and, as it happens, I'm a mod of The Chose. Barad has been awol for a while now, and we all know Furls' story. I'm very happy to take on these duties, and co-modding with Xar is particularly cool.


So then...

My first order of business, as anyone should be able to guess, is to ban rus from the Close.

[aliantha]

My first order of business, as anyone should be able to guess, is to ban rus from the Close.

And to think I supported you for this job! Welcome, Fist!

[SoulBiter]

congrats Fist!! Fist... hmm does that mean he will rule with an iron hand?