Open Letter: Philosophy Forum

To the administration and moderation teams:

Please clean up the philosophy forum or consider renaming it.

Sadly the forum has hit an all time low. The amount of threads and posts that have turned into nothing more than stoning each other to near death, kicking and screaming, insulting, crudeness, rudeness, and outright indecency has long past the point of utterly ridiculous.

I implore the administration and moderation teams to seriously look into taking some kind of action and active role in governing the forum, whether it be moving threads that don't belong there to more suitable forums such as banter [preferably before they get out of control], closing threads down, renaming the forum to something like "cage matches", "penis fights", etc, or even removing the forum all together if we cannot display the ability to be decent human beings. In its present form, it is demoralizing to the community and promotes hatred and ill-will.

I can only hope you seriously consider this matter in your many tasks of governing Dream Views. I can also only hope that either something is done, or people come to self-realizations and turn it around on their own before the philosophy forum becomes a dark spot of Dream Views and a dark spot of the internet; a place where no one wants to go. Though for this, I fear it may already be the case.

With love

I agree with this, up to a point

I think the admin / mod staff have been quite good in the forum design
keeping the dream topics on the main index page
and the AOB on a seperate "off-topic" page

People who come here for the primary purpose of lucid dreaming are pretty much barriered off from the off topic forums, unless they choose to go there

I would agree totally, if the relegious banter was intermingled amoungst the serious dream threads
that would make the forum as a whole, hard work
but the users here are very good at maintaining that barrier

I also agree that some users (particularly new registrations, and people of a sensative nature) may find the discussion

Quote:

---

nothing more than stoning each other to near death, kicking and screaming, insulting, crudeness, rudeness, and outright indecency[/b]

---

This was certainly a problem I encountered when administering my (now defunct) Hip-hop forum. One of the biggest problems is that sarcasm and joking do not always come over well in text. Most people can tell the difference, but there are times when one man's idle throw away joke may seem a little harsh to third parties.

However this is a problem faced by most discussion boards, and there is no real effective way to tackle it, apart from rigorous and iron fisted moderation, which is often far worse.

Forums need to stay "alive" to be successful
Alive, meaning either
- There's a wealth of interesting information that that's constantly being added to that means people keep coming back
- There's a fun, entertaining, jovial community of people (much like a pub) that people feel comfortable in just hanging out.

This forum has both.

Win-win scenario for all users:

Post more quality in the lucid dreams sections.

Thanks for expressing your concerns. I suppose if people refuse to practice tolerance we could simply ban all discussions of religion from the forum. The idea has come up several times before, but it is something I've never really reached a decision on. I suppose this forum is, after all, supposed to be a practical site, thus very light on the spiritual side so that no one feels excluded. And that was always the intent of this site: to make everyone feel welcome. So if people are insistent on bullying their beliefs upon others, which I know we've all witnessed, there is the aforementioned simple solution. Has it really come to that though? I don't know.

As I've said before - I really don't care what your religion is.

I don't, however, appreciate having it crammed in my face all the time.

It's your delusion. Enjoy it in the privacy of your own home, or where others of your kind exclusively meet. As it is, you're doing your door-knockers a great disservice. I refuse in my annoyance to be terribly bothered if the dog accidentally slips out the next time someone knocks on my door wanting to further shove that crap down my throat. Someone is going to get beaten with their own leg, and that's on your collective heads.

(the bible thumpers all seem to be just about as illiterate as awaken is. It would probably also have issues with comprehending "No Trespassing" "No Soliciting" and "Beware of Dog signage.)

In short, if I wanted the religious mumbojumbo tripe, I'd go to a religious forum.

Since I tend to believe that's not the point here - I'm certainly going to make the environment less welcoming to it.

I don't often post in the Philosophy forum, but I do read it very often - this is because I'm not really confident about expressing my views on such matters brought up (I will get involved more soon hopefully :) )
What I have noticed, however, is that when a religious topic is opened (e.g: Is God Coverned by Laws etc) half of the posts seem to be atheists just going on about how there is no God. Ok, I dont mind people not believing in God, but please don't go around wrecking these topics. I think others would agree that we don't want to hear you going on at how our beliefs are wrong, when we are trying to having a discussion on them.
If you don't believe in a God don't bother posting unconstructive posts. Please, don't just blame the reilgious posters for the "penis talk".

I hope I put my view across clearly.

Phallam, you're wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by phallam
I think others would agree that we don't want to hear you going on at how our beliefs are wrong, when we are trying to having a discussion on them.

---

Why would you have a discussion about them, if you weren't interested in which bits were wrong, confusing, or totally unfounded?

im just saying that i've seen, in many instances, where people just say (obviously not in these exact words); "There is no God, so therefore, you are wrong". Even when the discussion is about, say, how God IS something. It's just silly.

Absolutely. If it's constantly in my face, I'm going to make the delusion clear.

If it were up to me, I'd remove the philosophy forum altogether. It isn't relevant to the topic of dreams, and while the authors of the site acknowledge this by placing it in the off-topic section, the fact is that 90% of all that occurs there is petty arguing and violent bashing of one another's opinions. If you guys are really into philosophy and want to talk about it, that's fine; there's plenty of other philosophy forums out there, just use Google. I don't think that we want or need any of that ultimately pointless bickering on Dream Views.

Actually, DuB, philosophy is extremely relevant to dreams. Studying dreams can be very difficult if we are not aware of the philosophical assumptions and reasonings that underpin the way see them.

Just as philosophy of mathematics underpins mathematics, and philosophy of science underpins science, and so on for every other subject, an informal and still tacit "philosophy of dreaming" underpins our dreaming.

It affects the way we talk about dreaming at all levels. Many of the conflicts in dream studies are rooted in philosophical differences. The occult sectarianists and inclusionists are a prime example.


If anything the philosophy section should be given more prominence, in the form of a section devoted specifically to pursuits in the informal "philosophy of dreaming." Perhaps someday it can be formal.

Okay, I buy that. So let's change it to a "philosophy of dreams" forum, and move it out of the off-topic section. I'm not even being sarcastic, I think that could be a good idea. What do you guys think of this?

If that happens, then, in order for that section to not be polluted, there should probably still be another general philosophy forum to dump all the wayward junk.

Philosophy is about questioning things. It involved examining and perhaps tearing to shreds each other's deeply held assumptions simultaneously with our own. But the goal is always a better understanding, one that hopefully offers us more power, direction, and focus.

Personally, I don't think that the section would be treated very well. It would require, I think, people to have at least some basic training in philosophy (learning to question and examine things in detail while keeping a larger concept in mind), and whole lot of maturity. I don't want to be disappointed after it's made. :sweat2:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dream-scape
To the administration and moderation teams:

Please clean up the philosophy forum or consider renaming it.

Sadly the forum has hit an all time low. The amount of threads and posts that have turned into nothing more than stoning each other to near death, kicking and screaming, insulting, crudeness, rudeness, and outright indecency has long past the point of utterly ridiculous.

I implore the administration and moderation teams to seriously look into taking some kind of action and active role in governing the forum, whether it be moving threads that don't belong there to more suitable forums such as banter [preferably before they get out of control], closing threads down, renaming the forum to something like \"cage matches\", \"penis fights\", etc, or even removing the forum all together if we cannot display the ability to be decent human beings. In its present form, it is demoralizing to the community and promotes hatred and ill-will.

I can only hope you seriously consider this matter in your many tasks of governing Dream Views. I can also only hope that either something is done, or people come to self-realizations and turn it around on their own before the philosophy forum becomes a dark spot of Dream Views and a dark spot of the internet; a place where no one wants to go. Though for this, I fear it may already be the case.

With love

---

Tattletail!

Why can't some people mind their own business?

Does there always have to be these Nazis demanding that we all goose-step to the beat of their own maniacal drummers.

Is over-moderation and banning all discussion REALLY in our best interests? Yes, it makes for a clean page. It makes for an empty page.

You know, just for the sake of Irony, I think that the Moderators should ban anyone who suggests that more people should be banned. People like you want BANNING. Well, you should get it. You don't like it here, so you're not welcome here. Maybe you would learn something of a lesson about freedom of speech... that if you don't allow it, then you don't get it.

Leo: Um...yeah.

Anyway, I'm all for banning religious discussion. It's not about censorship at this point, it's about evangelist crap knowing no freaking boundaries and sucking up everything in it's path. Of course, we could just clamp shut the main source of all the recent junk, and ban Awaken4e1 instead. :P Ice-man, it's your call.

I agree with there being a problem. I've voiced my opinion in a few threads in that section recently. Rather than banning all religious debates, I would rather consider being more strict in regard to being more courteous to each other.
Its not the religion thats the problem - its the ripping of heads.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Placebo
I would rather consider being more strict in regard to being more courteous to each other.
Its not the religion thats the problem - its the ripping of heads.

---

Placebo, thank for you taking the time to be one of the few to actually read and understand what I was saying in the letter.

I understood what you were saying perfectly, I guess I'm just the kind of person who would say "fuck it" and remove the forum rather than trying to play referree.

Although, admittedly, this might just be because I have 0 (ZERO) interest in topics such as "Is God bound by any laws of reality?" as well as 95% of all the other stupid shit in there. So I guess I'm somewhat biased.

Hey, don't I get any thanks?

This does not necessarily apply to the current case, but just because people agree with you doesn't mean they understand you.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex Nine
Hey, don't I get any thanks?

---

Perhaps ;)

But my post was starting to be misconstrued by some as being anti-religious, quasi-nazi, hard fisted, let's ban people, ban him, ban her, ban this type of thread, ban that type of thread, etc, etc... all of which are gross misperceptions of what I actually wrote.

Placebo hit the nail on the head, and I felt it necessary to acknowledge that

hrm. I'm not overly keen on the idea of completely banning the discussion of anything. I think, perhaps, I'll draw up some binding guidelines about how discussions can proceed within the philosophy section. There really is a mature and considerate way of discussing any topic; unfortunately some people are very bull-headed and haven't patience for deviance from their own ideas & truths. What everyone needs to understand is I built this place for >everyone<, and not just you & your beliefs & your ideas. Too many people just don't get that there is no "universal truth"--how can there be, when we all believe different things? How can one's belief be more true than another, if they each believe it with the same depth and level of passion? It's the belief itself that is important and true to each individual, and it's simply retarded to argue beliefs: no one ever gets anywhere doing so, and instead many people are just left feeling hurt afterwards.

I think a lot of people perhaps just miss the point of this forum; perhaps they need to reread the first couple pages of the main site, which strongly emphasizes this place is built on practicality & tolerance. If people refuse to tolerate others here, they need to move on. It's basically like me inviting you all into my house...if you can't behave like a decent person, you're simply not welcome here. I refuse to continue paying for intolerant people to use this place if they're going to continue going against some very simple & reasonable founding principles.

Probably I'll post the guidelines, and then go into details of what recourse we'll consider appropriate for violators. Likely people will get a warning, then a 2 week banning, then complete removal of posting privileges from the relevant forum (e.g. philosophy) indefinitely.

How about adding the "ignore" mod so that people and/or entire forums can be ignored?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by icedawg
Too many people just don't get that there is no \"universal truth\"--how can there be, when we all believe different things? How can one's belief be more true than another, if they each believe it with the same depth and level of passion? ...

---

It's appropriate you brought this up because an understanding of this is central to proper philosophical discourse. And... well... what you said is a common misunderstanding. :)

The fact that many people believe different things is not a proof of relativism (that all of their beliefs are simultaneously valid).

If we want people to listen to each other and gain a shared understanding, I'm not sure that it is a very good idea to adopt a relativist approach, which is essentially \"you have your ideas, I have mine, let's not have to change them.\"

Philosophy is exactly about probing the depths of those beliefs. In an informal non-academic setting, I would only expect it to get very messy. It gets even messier in formal settings!

Quote:

---

It's the belief itself that is important and true to each individual, and it's simply retarded to argue beliefs: no one ever gets anywhere doing so, and instead many people are just left feeling hurt afterwards.[/b]

---

That's the temptation and benefit relativism offers. There would be fewer wars if we were all relativists. But, then, there would also be fewer conversations, fewer ideas exchanged, less growth, and IMHO, absolutely no understanding.

To sum up, we can be respectful and tolerant without having to go relativist. Here are a few suggestions we might add to a sticky in the philosophy section, or in fact to the whole forum.

1) An attack on your ideas is not necessarily an attack on you.
2) When uncertain about being attacked, give the benefit of the doubt.
3) Don't take your ideas personally. In other words, do not make it so that an attack on your ideas actually is an attack on you.
4) Don't be afraid to be playful.
5) Pay little attention to InTheMoment. I mean, have some decency.

It's possible to be tolerant and respectful of other people's ideas and each other in a philosophy forum, but I don't think that kind of perfection is realistic. :smartie:

Excellent post, Ex. I agree fully.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DuB
Excellent post, Ex. I agree fully.

---

Hear, hear! I guess I posted a few times fanning the flames in there, and I can assure Ice, and everyone: that will never happen again.

I relish discussions in the Philosophy Forum, and especially if certain guidelines and subsequent consequences, such as revoking of forum posting priveleges, are put in place, then the last thing I would want to do is jeopardize my ability to participate in intelligent philosophic discussion.

I feel bad that it has come to this, however, all we can do now is move forward -- like philosophy itself. :content:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex Nine
It's appropriate you brought this up because an understanding of this is central to proper philosophical discourse. And... well... what you said is a common misunderstanding.

The fact that many people believe different things is not a proof of relativism (that all of their beliefs are simultaneously valid).

If we want people to listen to each other and gain a shared understanding, I'm not sure that it is a very good idea to adopt a relativist approach, which is essentially \"you have your ideas, I have mine, let's not have to change them.\"

---

I disagree with you. I speak here of religious/spiritual beliefs, since the fighting over them on the forum is the problem in which we currently discuss: and that makes sense that it is that particular aspect of philosophy that would cause the most unrest, since it is there that people believe most passionately. I think, perhaps, you were taking my argument and applying it to areas I did not intend it to be applied (my fault for not being clear!) I stated it because the fundamental inherent issue behind all religious beliefs is that they can be neither proved nor disproved. Thus, all are equally valid, and to denounce one's beliefs in favour of another's is absolute folly. There is still plenty of room for discussion without resorting to asserting one's superiority over another.

BTW, the approach I think all of us are hoping for here is not quite as you suggested, but instead: "You have your ideas, I have mine; let's learn to respect that."

I appreciate your list of suggestions for the pending guidelines; if anyone else has further suggestions to add to that list, please speak up.

I respect that! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by icedawg
... the fundamental inherent issue behind all religious beliefs is that they can be neither proved nor disproved.

---

Not necessarily. Sure, there are certain \"axioms\" that religions take for granted, but even those may be questioned for their merit or lack of self-evidence. Looking for proofs and disproofs is part of philosophical investigation. Questioning everything.

Quote:

---

There is still plenty of room for discussion without resorting to asserting one's superiority over another.[/b]

---

Despite appearances, being able to communicate a superior idea does not make one superior.

Quote:

---

BTW, the approach I think all of us are hoping for here is not quite as you suggested, but instead: \"You have your ideas, I have mine; let's learn to respect that.\"[/b]

---

Okay, but, can I tear someone's ideas to shreds and still respect those ideas? I think so. In fact, I think it might show great respect.

For instance, I hope I'm respecting your ideas...?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex Nine
Okay, but, can I tear someone's ideas to shreds and still respect those ideas? I think so. In fact, I think it might show great respect.

For instance, I hope I'm respecting your ideas...?

---

ROFL!!!

BURN!!! :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex Nine
Not necessarily. Sure, there are certain \"axioms\" that religions take for granted, but even those may be questioned for their merit or lack of self-evidence. Looking for proofs and disproofs is part of philosophical investigation. Questioning everything.

---

You're kind of splitting hairs here and dancing around my point. Yes, if one's religious beliefs suggest a vacuum operates via magic, clearly a level of validity can be attached. You know what I'm saying though, so I'm a little lost as to why you're pushing this as you are. The core ideas in any religion, once again, cannot be proved nor disproved; you mention evidence, but religion generally supercedes evidence--it is supposed to be a leap of faith.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex Nine+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ex Nine)</div>

Quote:

---

Despite appearances, being able to communicate a superior idea does not make one superior. [/b]

---

Assuming you're discussing religion--since that's the defined topic here--who is to say what idea is superior? What religion is superior? I think you're missing the point here. :mrgreen:

<!--QuoteBegin-Ex Nine
Okay, but, can I tear someone's ideas to shreds and still respect those ideas? I think so. In fact, I think it might show great respect.

---

That all depends on your definition of "tearing into one's ideas." If it is as you've done now, then certainly the answer is yes. I thought, however, we were discussing blatant harassment and belittlement and outright denunciations and whatnot, but perhaps I was wrong (?)

Again, I think you're missing my point here. We're discussing what we need to do in order to allow for more peaceful, tolerant discussions on religion; at no point did I suggest comparisons and arguments and general questioning must be forbidden. It's all in how it's done, and you've demonstrated a great way of doing so, so if that was always your agenda, then well done. Otherwise, I think perhaps you're not exactly helping now because I'd say the original intent is becoming less clear. I believe you and I want the exact same guidelines in place, seeking the exact same development in future discourse in the philosophy forum on religion, so I'm just not sure where all this is coming from?

You're right, Icedawg.

I was trying to expand on my point that I don't think it's realistic to expect a great deal of tolerance from people on these particular subjects, and that a lack of tolerance is perfectly natural and expected when examining deep issues.

I suppose I'm looking for tolerance of a lack of tolerance?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex Nine
You're right, Icedawg.

I was trying to expand on my point that I don't think it's realistic to expect a great deal of tolerance from people on these particular subjects, and that a lack of tolerance is perfectly natural and expected when examining deep issues.

---

Certainly that's true...very true, given the passion behind beliefs; and very obvious too, given the boundless unrest in the world over the chasms between beliefs. So I guess we should consider these guidelines an experiment, and if people still can't learn to exercise tolerance then we'll look into banning religious topics completely. I just again am reluctant to do so, so I want to give this a try...at least then we will have done all we can right? :wink:

You were forced to before, remember. From what I see it looks like it might happen again.

We have some major pompus religous concited crazy people here, you know? Who think they are better than everyone elce beacse the see the truth, or have "awakened" :P So going over to the philosphy forms usualy makes me sick beacse i feel like i have been tossed into the deep south religous insane people cult... sometimes. If people dint push thier relgion then the the forum woudl be fine. I say just make it a rule that there can be no tolerance of members insulting each others belifes and pushing thier "superior" relgion down our throughts.

Unfortunately, at the same time, the other side isn't much better. They just as harshly discourage or shoot down religious or spiritual ideas. I can't truly vouch for either.

Everyone's looking for a place to belong, it's what religion is usually about. But imo, whilst the philosophy forum is very amusing, it seems to be getting nothing productive done. Keep it up awhile before deciding whether or not to do something about it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AirRick101+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AirRick101)</div>

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, at the same time, the other side isn't much better. They just as harshly discourage or shoot down religious or spiritual ideas. I can't truly vouch for either.[/b]

---

<!--QuoteBegin-AirRick101
But imo, whilst the philosophy forum is very amusing, it seems to be getting nothing productive done.

---

My sentiments exactly, on both points.

How about creating a separate off-topic forum solely for discussing religious issues, and disallowing the discussion of religion outside of that forum? My personal opinion is that religious debates are utterly pointless; you're NOT going to change someone's fundamental religious beliefs with a few paragraphs on a web forum, all you're going to do is waste bandwidth and most likely piss people off, including yourself. However, I'm sure at least a few people will go to the Religion forum, and that way we can sleep soundly at night knowing that we haven't censored any topics :roll: Thing is, not very much outside of religion and/or "spirituality" gets discussed in the Philosophy forum. At least they'll be able to discuss the other stuff in a civil manner (hopefully). Thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DuB

My sentiments exactly, on both points.

How about creating a separate off-topic forum solely for discussing religious issues, and disallowing the discussion of religion outside of that forum?

---

Actually, we already have a separate off-topic section for religious issues, it just happens to fall under 'philosophy' as well.
Perhaps you mean splitting philosophy into 2 sections? Perhaps that's a good idea, but all it would accomplish is the separation of people interested in faith issues and those interested in skepticism.

Either way, we would still need to keep it civil. And to do so requires that some moderator (eg. me) gets accused of being unfair and has to sit each bloody night going through everyone's issues of faith looking for barbs. That's the job I guess....

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Placebo
And to do so requires that some moderator (eg. me) gets accused of being unfair and has to sit each bloody night going through everyone's issues of faith looking for barbs. That's the job I guess....

---

Random server crashes are great for removing un-wanted crud without repocusions :-P


The way I see it
these things happen
they are going to keep happening
why not have some fun with it ??

Design a rating system, purely for the philosiphy forum
all topics start at rating 5
with every reply, posters can rate the topic so far
rating is open to ALL posters
if the average rating falls below 2, say
the topic is locked, the topic author's avatar is changed to a dunces hat
The only way to get control of his avatar again is to acheive a topic rating of 7 in another topic

S'what I'd do
but hey.......

It's often not the topic author's fault that the topic derailed ;)
But the rating system is interesting. I fear it would be abused though. It's easy to fake a number of votes just to mess with someone you don't like.

Ok, well you could modify my Sh*t-Can system that I've used many times

It's a jail forum
completely read-only to everyone except the prisoner(s)
Mods / Admins can Sh*t-Can a user (button in their profile)
and the only forum that the prisoner can access is the Can
if they try to access any other parts, they are re-directed back to the Can

The way I had it set up, was with two chat-bots roaming the Can
One with Sci-Fi information loaded into it's brain
the other with religious info.

These bots would talk to the prisoners constantly
not leave them alone
the prisoners had a sentence length (in days)
after the sentence was up, they could re-join the rest of the forum

The threat of getting Canned was great for keeping unrulely users at bay
plus it provided lots of entertainment for the other users


Another system we had, was an "ignore user" button
if someone wanted to ignore a particular user, just press the button
suddenly, you can't see their posts at all, it's as if their posts weren't there

Mods had a "global ignore user" which meant that no-one could see their posts
all the effects of banning, without the ban
ignored users would get bored (they had no idea no-one could see their posts) and went away without the feeling of indignity of being banned (we got far less hacking attempts using the ignore user, than with banning users)

Use your imagination.

Hahaha, sounds quite fun actually. With some modifications I guess.
I'll see what the admins and mods think of it :)

We had a whole load of quirky custom mods installed
I'll list a few of them out with a brief description if you want

Moved to extended discussion.

By request, this topic was split to : How to conquer a fear (Split from Philosophy forum discuss.). This involves discussion on nesgirl's fear of using the name 'OBE' in place of 'sci-fi' (as I understand)

Here's what I have to say:

1.What should a Philosophy-oriented forum look like?
It should be a place where parties can openly discuss points of view on vaious subjects without fearing excessive attacks.

2. Why don't I visit the Philosophy forum?
Because just about every thread invariatably turns into an attack until posts are reduced to nothing more than, "You're wrong and I'm right." I admit that there have been quite a few intelligent discussions, but the majority remains the as mentioned.

Now, there has to be the disctinction between debate and arguement. As we grow older we learn not to stick our tongues out at others because it's childish. We put aside the "Uh uh / yuh huh!" taunting in favor of intelligable conversations where we discuss our varying views. These debates are not necessarily designed to prove who is right and who is wrong, but rather cause both parties to consider what each other is saying.

I believe in absolute truth. Do I believe I know what it is? Yes, and I bet you do as well. Keep in mind, however, my truth will not be the same as your truth because we've lived different lives. We are essentially living in two different realities bound by different laws and guidelines, causing us to judge based on individual perception. Even if you're not applying the term "absolute truth" to God or religion, it can be applied to the values we hold to be right, be they noble or ignoble.

In conclusion, the debates or discussions within the Philosophy forum should be as two or more people comparing their realities rather than trying to destroy the reality of the other people involved.

:bravo:, Amé, :bravo:!

I think that to simply settle on some cut and dry version of truth because thats what your parents taught you is massively intellectually irrensponsible and dishonest. Any fool can sit in a church or science classroom and take every word they hear as truth.

But the fact is, the reason we have our brains (either God-given or evolved) is to think for ourselves. Not to bow down to the collective ideal of what truth is.

I agree that many threads in the Philosphy forum do reduce to nothing more than name-calling (especially recently) and that is unfortunate. But it's much better than the alternative.

Without having your beliefs challenged from day to day you grow numb to the idea of change. Psychologically, without considering viable alternatives to your beliefs, you tend to disregard information that challenges said belief, and only process information that supports. Strengthening the effects of belief perserverance, belief bias and confirmation bias that already have an impact on our psyche.

To avoid discussion and debate about one's thoughts, opinions and beliefs is to deny the true beauty of what it is to be intelligent.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Amethyst Star
*Keep in mind, however, my truth will not be the same as your truth because we've lived different lives. *

---

Sorry - but then, by definition, it's not "truth". It's subjective reality rather than objective reality.

Truth is truth regardless of what you think/feel/believe. That's what "truth" is.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Amethyst Star
1.What should a Philosophy-oriented forum look like?
It should be a place where parties can openly discuss points of view on vaious subjects without fearing excessive attacks.

---

No, they should fear it! They should fear it being endlessly attacked by a mob of angry bears with big powerful wings.

Then maybe they'll put more thought into their posts. :|

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex Nine


No, they should fear it! They should fear it being endlessly attacked by a mob of angry bears with big powerful wings.
*:|

---

Are they tastey? I've never shot an angry bear with big powerful wings...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kimpossible
I've never shot an angry bear with big powerful wings...

---

That's probably because they're angry. And have big powerful wings!

bradybaker, thanks again for your view on religion. However, it was not included in my previous statement.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kimpossible
Sorry - but then, by definition, it's not \"truth\". *It's subjective reality rather than objective reality. *Truth is truth regardless of what you think/feel/believe. *That's what \"truth\" is.

---

We could start a whole new thread on "truth vs subjective reality"... which I think already might be in existence. In my view, Truth = Subjective reality. Each person defines truth for themselves. Even with "universal truths" (ie. the sky is blue), others may decide that that is not true. After all, how can you define "Blue" to someone born blind?

And thanks Ex Nine for displaying my post on derailing topics. :shakehead2:

-Amé

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Amethyst Star
We could start a whole new thread on \"truth vs subjective reality\"... which I think already might be in existence. *In my view, Truth = Subjective reality. *Each person defines truth for themselves. *Even with \"universal truths\" (ie. the sky is blue), others may decide that that is not true. * -Amé

---

Sigh. I blame our schools. Really, I do. I'm sure it's not your fault.

"The sky is blue" is subjective.

"The reflected and refracted light traveling through our atmosphere on a comparatively clear sunny day is primarily around 475nm."

That is objective. You can try to argue with it, but you'd be wrong. Those statements are unable to change because you: think, feel, believe, want, desire, pray, do the wave-length-changing-chant-and-dance.... that they should.

They are. They were. And they will be. Loooong after you are dust. Loooong after your dust is dust.

Then we have the statement: "In 2005, statistically, the vast majority of sighted English-speaking people, by convention, associate light at 475nm with the color 'blue'" Again: objective. Without the date you run the risk of someone coming along and convincing people that gawd wants 'em to call it "argabarga" instead of "blue" and them falling for it.

So, as you can see: Truth is Truth. Objective Reality is Objective.

You can argue with it all you want, but you will ALWAYS be wrong.

Alright! *rolls up his sleeves*

Subjective statements can still be true or false. However, they rely of human mental states. "This Halloween candy is sweet," is subjective and can be true or false depending on the speaker's mental state. Objective statements are wholly independent of human mind states.

To tell the difference, imagine what meaning a statement would have if there were no human minds in existence, like if we were all wiped out. The example before would not apply, but something like, "this candy is made of sugar," would be significantly more objective. Another test is to see how much it depends on agreement. Objectivity has nothing to do with agreement. Try not to get caught up in the linguistics.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Amethyst Star
In my view, Truth = Subjective reality. *Each person defines truth for themselves.

---

This is called \"relativism.\" Anyone who is reading this - please at least know what it's called, so you can talk about it. :) Relativism not just that there are many judgments, but that they are all equally valid and true.

So, if you are going to be a relativist, you must be a subjectivist. However, if you are a subjectivist, you are not necessarily a relativist.

It would really help smooth discussion, I think, if we could know clearly who was and was not a relativist. It would give each of us some predictive power in seeing where a discussion would go and if it would get heated. If everyone in the discussion was a relativist, the conversation would probably not last long. If no one was a relativist, it would potentially go a very long time. Maybe if those who are relativists could raise their hands and say, \"I am a relativist,\" it would help. :)

I don't mean to call you an \"extremist,\" Amé, but I feel I should point out to you that \"Truth = Subjective reality\" is usually classified as \"extreme relativism.\"

Quote:

---

Even with \"universal truths\" (ie. the sky is blue), others may decide that that is not true. *After all, how can you define \"Blue\" to someone born blind?[/b]

---

\"The sky is blue,\" as Kim pointed out, is subjective and not a universal truth. It's not true for people who are blind, which is what I think you were getting at, because they do not experience the mental state of blueness. There really is no disputing about \"blueness.\" You can't reason other people to see it. The same way there is no disputing about the sweetness of our Halloween candy. It can be true or false, but not by reason.

Quote:

---

And thanks Ex Nine for displaying my post on derailing topics. :shakehead2:[/b]

---

I like to think of it as pushing it on a sieve for injecting slight but needed amusement. :)

Personally, I love arguing with people who are being hateful toward me. I have been extremely (relatively) tame on the philosophy board on this site because the moderators want it to be civil. I tend to never personally insult anybody who isn't being a jerk, on any philosophy board or in any other place in my life. I have not once personally insulted anybody on the philosophy board who didn't do it to me first, and I have been very civil in the way that I do it... back.

If the moderators had said that we can be as uncivil as we want, I would have held back nothing in really putting several people in their places. Instead, I have gently pointed out illogic and hypocrisy and used light satire. I am amazed that Dream-scape is the person who started this thread because he has been the most insulting of everybody. He has blind sided me several times with comments to the efffect of, "That point is stupid," "The use of that term is stupid," and, "All you proved just then is that you are a complete lunatic." This guy is bothered by insulting conversation? It seems to me that some people are really bothered by being put in their places when they are rude, but that everybody has enjoyed being insulting. I think the philosophy forum should be the one forum that gets an exemption from the civility rule. There are too many angry, hateful people there for it to be civil when the existence of God is brought up, and therefore questioned. Politics would be even worse. When America's war on terror becomes a common topic, watch what happens.

I have yet to see a philosophy forum anywhere where there aren't several people seeing to it that there is an air of hostility. I choose not to initiate that, but it is fun to snap back when I am hit with it.

Some people who shall remain nameless, and some types of people in general who shall remain nameless tend towards playing the martyr card.

They pick a fight with someone bigger than they are, and then whine when they get their ass kicked.

If you think about it, that really plays in to the whole g*d-thing. If they start getting their ass kicked, they have to try to appeal to someone bigger than they are. That's where pr*yer comes into play.


[There. Is that milquetoast enough not to get moderated? Go ahead - show me where I was insulting (a) particular person(s). I will flately deny the post had anything to do with anyone and/or religion in general. And I'm ready to prove it. Or bring in a legal team to advise on proving it. ;)]

[*Seeker slaps Kim* :D Thank you for trying to be civil.]

I'll try to explain my point of view one more time.

A. I put "universal truths" in quotations for a reason. Because some "universal truths", as you were saying, Ex Nine, are not universal, though many think they are.

B. I am not a relativist. Do I believe my truth is better than your truth, of course! Why? Because I'm a human functioning within her own subjective reality.

C. I don't visit the philosophy forum to defend my religion. Why? Because you don't care.

Now, through my own experiences (namely studying Russian literature in depth), I have come to the conclusion that truth is subjective. Imagine a room, an empty room. Now, if I say that I see a chair and you don't, it doesn't matter whether the chair exists or not because the fact that it does exist is my truth. If you see the chair and I don't, I believe the chair doesn't exist (and that you are crazy), and that's my truth. Moving on, imagine that same empty room and I see the chair, but 10 other people don't see it. Who is right? We have two truths: my truth, and the truth of 10 other people. I could try to explain to them that I see the chair, right there, clear as daylight, but would that make a difference? They still don't see it.

There are two main questions to ask in this scenario: how do you judge whose truth is more accurate? and, what happens if the one person who sees the chair is right? That is what you must consider when dealing with philosophy.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kimpossible
You can argue with it all you want, but you will ALWAYS be wrong.

---

Subjective.

-Amethyst Star

If the chair is there, then the chair is there. If it is not there, then it is not there. Truth is objective. If I don't see the chair and you do, I am asking a legitimate question when I say, "How do you know the chair is there? There doesn't seem to be a chair in here." Some people in the philosophy forum respond by saying, "Well, I see it because I'm better than you. You suck for not seeing the chair. How dare you bash the chair!" That kind of talk doesn't clear things up for me, at all.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Universal Mind
If the chair is there, then the chair is there. If it is not there, then it is not there. Truth is objective.

---

Well, who are you to judge what I see? I don't mean that in a deragatory sense, but merely as an open question with an undefined "you." If I've decided that I see the chair, then in my mind I'm right. It's all about the frame of mind.

Transition: the philosophy forum in this context would be me discussing the possible reasoning behind why I see the chair and the possibilities for why you may not see it. I totally agree that any "I'm better than you" talk doesn't help any conversation one bit.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Amethyst Star
If I've decided that I see the chair, then in my mind I'm right. It's all about the frame of mind.

---

Truth isn't about what's right and wrong, it's about what is and isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bradybaker
Truth isn't about what's right and wrong, it's about what is and isn't.

---

*sigh* Read Dostoevsky.

I'm trying to explain that since "truth" is such a broad term, it doesn't necessarily matter what is and what isn't. You could tell an insane person any truth under the sun and they could still deny it with all their heart. Someone who has been continually hurt by a particular gender as a child could grow up believing that all members of that gender are evil, though we know "that that's not true." Or is it?

It is through asking these questions of ourselves that we discover our own truth, based on our subjective reality, to borrow some of your own words, brady. As a whole, the human race can not come up with the truth, only truths. Why, because no one can exist in the reality of another, thereby never seeing all of what created that person's truth. It's hard enough to understand our own realities, let alone that of another, even if it is for the pupose of trying to discover the truth. Subjective.

-Amé

*sigh* I understand what you're talking about, but I really don't think it deserves the label of "truth". Regardless of whether or not you or I see a chair or not, the physical reality is one or the other. Either it's there or it isn't. One option is factual, one is false.

Is it possible to know for sure if you're right or wrong? No.

It's not as if the universe disappears when you're not looking. There is an objective truth out there. Just because you can't grasp it doens't mean that you should run around calling whatever you see truth. You can only accept the fact that you will never know truth.

So when you try to sit in the chair and fall on your ass because it isn't there, and ten people point at you and laugh because they told you the chair wasn't there - why I guess that it just proves my point:

Truth exists whether you like it or not. You can deny it or accept it, but fact remains fact regardless of your perception of the fact.

If the chair is in the room and you refuse (or are unable) to perceive the TRUTH that the chair is in the room, and you trip over it and land on your nose, it again proves - positive or negative is irrelevant. Truth is fact and fact is truth and objective reality exists in spite of your perception of it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kimpossible
So when you try to sit in the chair and fall on your ass because it isn't there, and ten people point at you and laugh because they told you the chair wasn't there - why I guess that it just proves my point:

Truth exists whether you like it or not. You can deny it or accept it, but fact remains fact regardless of your perception of the fact.

If the chair is in the room and you refuse (or are unable) to perceive the TRUTH that the chair is in the room, and you trip over it and land on your nose, it again proves - positive or negative is irrelevant. Truth is fact and fact is truth and objective reality exists in spite of your perception of it.

---

Yes and no. In a more big picture sense, who's to say that people laughing at you exist?

Tripping over or trying to sit in the chair doesn't prove or disprove it's existence.

It's not a pleasant train of thought, or a usefull one...but unfortunately valid nonetheless.

It doesn't prove its existence, but it sure goes a long way towards experiential evidence.

Yes, there are truths that exist that people, even many of us here, have not discovered. If that is the case, however, how can we call it truth if we have neither experienced it or if no one has told us? How even more so if that truth is intangible?

To bring back "rationalism" into this, I still believe that everyone has their own version of what truth is. Yes, some truths are *cough* better (a subjective term) than others, and some truths are those that some/many/all people believe. Yet we live in an irrational world and thereby are able and often prone to make irrational judgements based on what we perceive to be truth.

I don't know how else to rephrase this. And it's late so my mind's getting foggy.

-Amé

Reality is relative, folks, it's all relative. Just live and let live, and it won't matter who believes what.

:content:

Alright, who spiked Mu's drink with the reconciliation pills?!?! :mad:

I think that in math classses, we shouldn't have answers. We should refer to them as "impressions." And if one person's impression is different from someone else's, it doesn't matter. Let's all be brothers.

-- Jack Handy, Deep Thoughts, Saturday Night Live

So I guess if I walk into a public place and hose down the people there with a Vulcan cannon - I can just claim that since none of them exist in my little world, it can't possibly be murder - thank you, case dismissed, right?


Make it a little closer to home: If you witnessed me shooting your best friend, you wouldn't testify, right?

I mean, you, me, your best friend, the gun, and the very concept of shooting - that's all so relative surely I shouldn't go to jail (which only exists if I choose to believe it does) and pay for the crime I've committed against you and your friend, right?

Can you begin to see how silly this road is?

You know, kim-chan, now you're just being...well, an old witch. Maybe, just maybe, I didn't mean it completely literally. Maybe I meant it in a harmonious, cosmic sort of way, hmmm? Maybe I was just trying to be uplifting and positive?

You're the second person I've had to tell to "come off it" today. :shakehead2:

It looks like you and I are going to cross swords.

Would you care to debate the point being made? Exactly what in that which I wrote is logically flawed?

Ame, thank you for clarifying.

Your statements before, without the clarification, seemed to strongly imply relativism. But they were not definitive on there own, so I was a bit hasty.

My thoughts are undeveloped on non-relativistic subjectivism, meaning I haven't considered how much I loathe it. ;) But I do recognize its strengths and appreciate your clarifying your thoughts.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Amethyst Star
Yes, some truths are *cough* better (a subjective term) than others, and some truths are those that some/many/all people believe.

---

How would all people believe something? Coincidence or agreement, maybe?

Kim-chan, what you said was not illogical -- but my point is, you took my comments too seriously. Just chillax, nee-chan. Maybe if you didn't get so cross-eyed over every little thing, you wouldn't miss the point, the bigger picture.

Now it's totally obvious why you and Awaken-san and d-tamer are butting heads: you're two sides of the same coin!

Be happy. :content:

I have officially KILLED this thread!

No one is allowed to post any more in this thread!

R.I.P.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DuB
I have officially KILLED this thread!

No one is allowed to post any more in this thread!

R.I.P.

---

See, that's just not true. Completely, objectively not true!

No, it's true! Truly true!

So stop :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakkantekimusouka
Leo: Um...yeah.

Anyway, I'm all for banning religious discussion. It's not about censorship at this point, it's about evangelist crap knowing no freaking boundaries and sucking up everything in it's path. Of course, we could just clamp shut the main source of all the recent junk, and ban Awaken4e1 instead. :P Ice-man, it's your call.

---

As a previous respondent has stated, I firmly believe that those who seek to ban others, are those who are the most disrupting of all the other members within any forum, and because if this disruption, I believe that this (mind-set) of having religious beliefs (crammed down their throats) is not only intolerant but is inaccurate, and it is that intolerance which must be banned, and not those sharing their beliefs. But of course the one’s wanting to ban others is in fact the one’s which need banning. They over take all serious discussions of spiritual matters, and turn them into mud slinging contest, in which they imply that they are the only one’s right within the discussion, and how can this be true because as soon as they entered the discussion(s) they cram their religion (atheism) down everyone else’s throat, then turn around and say it is those of faith who are doing it

P.S. 'Those who would have the nerve to correct someone's grammar, or spelling, and then in turn post something like this...(the bible thumpers all seem to be just about as illiterate as awaken is. It would probably also have issues with comprehending "No Trespassing" "No Soliciting" and "Beware of Dog signage.) ...

really needs to get the beam out of their eye, before trying to get the splinter out of me eye... My name is Awaken4e1, not awaken...learn to correctly correct yourself before attempting to correct others.


The Rev.

I reckon this thread is pretty much done too.
Awaken4e1: Uh, that post of hers was on page 1... :shock:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Placebo
I reckon this thread is pretty much done too.
Awaken4e1: Uh, that post of hers was on page 1... :shock:

---

Yep, thread locked.