Thread: Please vote - Split this section?

Originally posted by kimpossible


Still seems like the religious preaching crap should be kept to sites built for religious preaching crap.

That really is a good point. But good luck getting Awaken to understand that. He actually has hope of converting people on a Yahoo non-philosophy board, but he apparently feels the need to post his stuff on a philosophy board, where relentlessly skeptical atheists are abundant. I think what Awaken needs to do is be a missionary and go to the Middle East and try to convert Muslims to Christianity, or something. There are plenty of good candidates for conversion out there, but in a philosophy forum, he is just putting a target on his head that says, "Please debate me!"

Originally posted by O-Nieronaut
What about this for an idea? Split Philosophy into sub-sections, just like Off Topic itself. Here's the sub-categories:

Religion / Spirituality (Unmoderated) - for discussing scripture and interpretation, not for questioning the existence of a deity.

Quandary - For the contemplation of cerebral dillemas, like the \"tree falling in the woods\" question, the existence of a higher power, or quantum paradox.

Theories - A place to present your ideas about how it is, how it all works, how it can be done better. This could be scientific, political, or practical.

If anyone can think of any other good subsets, ad 'em, by all means. This is just my humble contribution.

Oh, uh ... I guess I should vote yes then, eh?

I kinda like this idea...i also like the idea of a psychology forum...
because that could lead back into dreaming, couldn't it?

I don't think we have a large enough population yet to warrant further dividing of the Philosophy forum. I was actually thinking, with the lack of religious topics within that forum that the proposed change would bring, that we should expand the realm of that forum a bit. Gwendolyn suggested, I believe, a Psychology forum. Instead of creating an additional two forums (again, because I'm not sure we're big enough for that yet), we could go ahead with the Religious/Spirituality forum creation, and then rename the Philosophy forum to "Philosophy and Psychology." That might help serve to fill the hole left in the religious topics' wake.

Thoughts?

Sounds good to me, Ice-man!

Philosophy and psychology don't really have much to do with one another.

Originally posted by bradybaker
Philosophy and psychology don't really have much to do with one another.

Hence why the forum would be open to both, and each's sub-categories. It would make for a broader range.

You know, the problem only started when awaken came here and posted dozens of threads that cluttered up the philosophy boards and distracted the entire tone here away from real philosophy and towards screaming at awaken and his nonsensical posts. Maybe we should just not let him start any new topics, or at least threaten to do this, if he doesn't stop spewing nonsense and flame-baiting.

Originally posted by Belisarius
You know, the problem only started when awaken came here and posted dozens of threads that cluttered up the philosophy boards and distracted the entire tone here away from real philosophy and towards screaming at awaken and his nonsensical posts. *Maybe we should just not let him start any new topics, or at least threaten to do this, if he doesn't stop spewing nonsense and flame-baiting.

I think that's a good idea...does anyone remember a user called dattaswami?
they did a similar thing...seems like we all ignored their ramblings, and i've not seen them for a while...can we not sort of ignore Awaken?

Belisarius and Irishcream, you are both bringing up valid points. Do we go to all the trouble and effort for just a few isolated cases?

Lets take a moment to forget the negatives and concentrate on the positives. What benefits would such new forums bring. i.e. how would the help our current members and would they be useful in attracting and retaining new members?

Originally posted by Belisarius
You know, the problem only started when awaken came here and posted dozens of threads that cluttered up the philosophy boards and distracted the entire tone here away from real philosophy and towards screaming at awaken and his nonsensical posts. *Maybe we should just not let him start any new topics, or at least threaten to do this, if he doesn't stop spewing nonsense and flame-baiting.

At this point, I think that is the best proposal. Awaken really is the problem here if you think about it, so really it's his behavior that needs to be changed, not the web site itself. When one of my students starts a bunch of chaos, I don't change the school around. I make him sit in the office.

Originally posted by spoon
I have a few objections, but I'll hold off voting in case I've missed something:

1. *There's more than one type of theist, non-christians and christians would still get into the same \"does god x really exist\" arguments.

2.a. *Philosphy is something you discover best by arguing. *Whats the point of making a sub-forum where everyone would be agreeing? *If christians want to sit around saying how awesome they all are, they can go to church.

2.b. If they don't want to argue about it, why post it on a discussion board? *If they just wanted people to agree they could get a blog.

3. *Wouldn't a less drastic solution, like making specific rules for the philosophy board, have less harmful impact? *One of the new rules might be, don't preach without posting a valid discussion point.

Indeed. Are you saying a religion and spirituality board where people can't deny the existence of god? That is silly.

In retrospect, I change my mind; Bel-Bel (and by extension, 'creamer, and U-Mind) is right.

Originally posted by Seeker
Belisarius and Irishcream, you are both bringing up valid points. *Do we go to all the trouble and effort for just a few isolated cases?

Lets take a moment to forget the negatives and concentrate on the positives. *What benefits would such new forums bring. i.e. *how would the help our current members and would they be useful in attracting and retaining new members?

Hmm. You have a point there seeker...if we start changing the forum, it's basically going to end up a hodge podge of different topics, rather than being centered on lucid dreaming. We're going to end up getting off our subjects.
Maybe someone could politely tell Awaken that if he wants to make such threads, he should do it in an appropriate forum, or, if he wants to involve current members of DV, invite them to join him in an IM chat, or on another board.
I respect where people are coming from when they post religious topics on the forum, but at the end of the day, isn't it 'Philosophy' in the broadest sense?
I mean in terms of all kinds of beliefs, faiths and practices? We all have our little rituals according to what we believe in.

If you want to talk deep religion, go to a religion forum, not dream views. We will tolerate it and even promote it, but we are nto going to go out of our way so some relgious devotees can spew relgious essays to us.

Can I vote twice--------------------------> NO

Originally posted by Belisarius
You know, the problem only started when awaken came here and posted dozens of threads that cluttered up the philosophy boards and distracted the entire tone here away from real philosophy and towards screaming at awaken and his nonsensical posts. Maybe we should just not let him start any new topics, or at least threaten to do this, if he doesn't stop spewing nonsense and flame-baiting.

Spoken like a true control freak there 'Belisarus'

As I have stated in the pass, to many of you who are all up in a roar, you read my posts as well as you read my screen name, and this speaks volumes to the knee jerk reaction most of you intellectuals have, when your logic is challenged. I will for the sake of those who only read into my posts what they will, again, my name is Awaken4e1, and not a previous member named Awaken.

The Rev.

Originally posted by Awaken4e1


Spoken like a true control freak there 'Belisarus'

As I have stated in the pass, to many of you who are all up in a roar, you read my posts as well as you read my screen name, and this speaks volumes to the knee jerk reaction most of you intellectuals have, when your logic is challenged. I will for the sake of those who only read into my posts what they will, again, my name is Awaken4e1, and not a previous member named Awaken.

The Rev.

You have challenged my logic? Woes!!!!!! When did this happen? Cool beans. I can't wait to finally read your answers to my questions and your counter arguments to my points. That will be interesting and informative. Up until now, I thought I had you pegged as a hit and run propagandist.

Maybe we could try to get some specific rules for philosophy section before a split is made?

Some examples of some rules:

- No preaching. Preaching could be defined as unsupported rhetoric without a clear discussion point.
- No ad hominem. Which is "A fallacy that attacks the person rather than dealing with the real issue in dispute."
- Try not to make claims without supporting evidence/reference. "Evolution is a fact" needs as much evidence as "The global flood from genesis has lots of supporting evidence!"
- Don't post another new topic if you have another(or several) existing in which you're still taking part

I'm not trying to make rules for everyone, I just think new rules might fix the same problem splitting the forum would. Maybe a few links could be included with them on critical thinking, avoiding logical fallacies, debate techniques, writing with a specific point in mind, etc.

-spoon

"spoon"

- No preaching. Preaching could be defined as unsupported rhetoric without a clear discussion point. [/b]

And who will be the authority to establish what is ‘supported rhetoric’, you?

- No ad hominem. Which is \"A fallacy that attacks the person rather than dealing with the real issue in dispute.\" [/b]

Ad homonymies, and non-sequitur, are the mainstays of most of the rhetoric which is served for consumption by those who won’t walk through the door of faith,

O’ yea what door?

- Try not to make claims without supporting evidence/reference. \"Evolution is a fact\" needs as much evidence as \"The global flood from genesis has lots of supporting evidence!\" [/b]

Trying to present a fact based on faith is like try to contain water in a screen cup.

- Don't post another new topic if you have another (or several) existing in which you're still taking part [/b]

Some people ‘can’ truly multi-task.

I'm not trying to make rules for everyone, I just think new rules might fix the same problem splitting the forum would. Maybe a few links could be included with them on critical thinking, avoiding logical fallacies, debate techniques, writing with a specific point in mind, etc. [/b]

So those who nit-pick spelling, grammar, conjecture through faith, and many other things they can’t control wont have to spend all their time insulting people for their lack of intelligence.

No one is saying that religion can't be discussed. What seems to be happening is that 'religion' is taking over the philosophy forum, which to me is a place to discuss all kinds of things relating to faith and belief. Most of what i see in there is Christian orientated, which is fine, but i think people are getting offended by some of the posts.
Its like it's becoming the 'christian' forum, rather than 'philosophy'
And regards your name, and you being confused with someone else. I don't think that's what the other member was trying to do. he was merely shortening your name, just as i get shortened to irish, ICream and 'creamer by some people. I don't start yelling at people calling me someone i'm not.
it's common practise to shorten names here.
It's as Barbizzle said. It's become a forum for religious theology, concentrating on one faith, rather than being about philosophy in it's broadest sense.
And, not only that, this is a forum about LUCID DREAMING and not theology! I for one do not want to see the whole board taken over by this kind of thing, these silly little arguments about whether it was the big bang or some bloke with a beard who made the world!
To be honest, i couldn't give a damn about that. What matters to me is this board and it being used for the purpose it was intended.
I used to hang about in there quite a bit when there was something to talk about, now it seems to me that Christians and Atheists are simply bashing each other over the head.
So i don't get involved, because i don't feel the need to defend my lack of faith.

And who will be the authority to establish what is ‘supported rhetoric’, you? [/b]

No, that would be the mods. Me ranting about how evolution is better than religion without any supporting evidence (hence the unsupported bit) is just as much rhetoric as you ranting about homosexuals. Supported posts (would not be rhetoric thats something we don't want) would maybe contain references and/or evidence.

Ad homonymies, and non-sequitur, are the mainstays of most of the rhetoric which is served for consumption by those who won’t walk through the door of faith,

O’ yea what door? [/b]

Good, then you have no objection to it not being allowed? Maybe we could have a rule - use the plainest language you can. Which might rule out such obtuse points as that.

Trying to present a fact based on faith is like try to contain water in a screen cup. [/b]

Ok. But you can start referencing bible quotes you use. Supporting statements you make about evolution. Bringing up evidence why you think homosexuals are a perversion. If presenting a fact based on faith is \"like trying to contain water in a screen cup\" then stop claiming your faith as factually true. Or else start referencing/posting evidence to support this \"fact\".

Some people ‘can’ truly multi-task.[/b]

Yet you keep making new threads in favour or answering pointed questions in others? You clutter up the forum with threads that you'll only participate in until someone raises a question you don't want to answer. Then clutter with more.

So those who nit-pick spelling, grammar, conjecture through faith, and many other things they can’t control wont have to spend all their time insulting people for their lack of intelligence. [/b]

Yes. We wont have to insult your lack of intelligence if you start showing you have some through correct spelling/grammar, critical thinking skills, using evidence, refraining from ad hom, etc. In something like philosophical debate you must try to communicate your point easily, succinctly and unambiguously. Something which these things would help, and you seem to not have done ever here.

-spoon

:bravo:

Originally posted by Awaken4e1
:bravo:

Three things would help greatly...

1. Answer questions directly. Long winded tangents do not answer questions.
2. Counter arguments directly. Long winded tangents do not counter arguments.
3. Do not start a new thread until you have directly answered the questions and countered the arguments of the last thread you started.

Your threads follow a pattern. You start a thread with religious points that are based on nothing but an unscientifically based book and faith. Then, others counter your points and ask you questions about what you said. In turn, you completely ignore most of the questions and points, but tangentially address a few. When the questions and points are repeated because you didn't directly answer and counter them, you get personally insulting. Before the conversation even gets off the ground, not that it ever does, you start a new thread and repeat the pattern. Your threads are clutting up the board, but your answers and counters are not because they do not exist, except for the one time you gave me a straight answer because I asked you over and over and over for it.

As can be seen from the voting results, splitting the forums has been decided by the majority. We're not going to do it quite as Placebo outlined in the first post however; instead, we are going to somewhat merge his idea with Seeker's: the Religious/Spirituality forum will be open to people of all faiths, including those without faith, and they can argue and whine with each other to their heart's content, and we will leave the discussions unmoderated. All religious topics on the forum must be housed within that forum; if others are found throughout the other forums, they will be moved.

We will of course look out for abusive members, but otherwise allow the members to use the forum as they see fit.


For now, we'll consider this an experiment.