-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Hello! Anybody else here a philosophy buff?
- Thread starter SESMeT
- Start date
Heyo
Veteran Member
Every 7k? You're not trying. I don't even have half of that and already got whacked on the fingers 5 times.
Last edited:
Heyo
Veteran Member
Welcome to RF.
It's easy to distinguish between debates and discussion. Debates are named debates (e.g. Religious Debates) and discussions are named discussions (e.g. General Discussions). Sections that don't have the special distinction can be either.
I'm not a professional philosopher, more of an "armchair philosopher" but you will find OPs from me in the philosophy section and comments on questions of philosophical topics. (But be warned, I've a twisted mind and few get my drift.)
To be fair, most of my posts are just 1 or 2 words.
SESMeT
Member
Ah so ... the important thing is to not intentionally invite debates such as creating a thread to invite debates .... unless inside a debate forum.
So this doesn't mean that it's against the rules to disagree with anybody at all outside of the debate forums, then?
SESMeT
Member
Would a fair and charitable interpretation of what you are saying be that outside of the debate forum it's extra important to be fair and charitable towards what other people are saying? That it's still important inside the debate forum but that it's outright against the rules to say stuff like "You're wrong" outside the debate forum ... rather than to more charitably look at what the other person is trying to say and not telling them that you're right and they're wrong? Is that a fair and charitable interpretation of what you're saying here?
Also, even if I misinterpreted you here ... it was in such a case (1) Accidental and, furthermore (2) I'm not saying I disagree with anything! I just want to make sure that I understand you
SESMeT
Member
I'm actually generally not so interested in the religious aspect but that is precisely why I want to be more open to the religious aspect and why I am joining this site ... does that make sense? It's like "I'm generally not interested ... but perhaps I can and should be?". I'm trying to be more open than I usually am on the topic of religion. Please let me know if this makes sense to you.
I'm mostly interested in metaphysics, ontology and ethics. More specifically: Free will, personal identity, presentism vs eternalism, what existence is in general, what reality is in general, the philosophy of mind, metaethics, normative ethics, population ethics and I enjoy answering questions of practical ethics. Political philosophy and epistemology are sometimes somewhat interesting to me but I'm in general a rather apolitical person and I think that the quest for *absolute* knowledge--aside from logical tautologies (which itself is a tautology, of course!) and the empirical reality that from the point of view of any conscious being they absolutely must be conscious--is overrated. I also think that theories of truth and meaning are more fundamental than knowledge and that really epistemology should be a subset of truth and meaning rather than vice-versa (although, I recognize that such issues are categorized as part of epistemology ... I just think that's a bit of a misnomer since I take knowledge to at the very least be justified true belief and thereby not all truths are necessarily known .... which seems to make truth more fundamental). Perhaps that on epistemology the views that I hold that are most valuable to me are the following couple of views: (1) That both rationalism and empiricism are required for knowledge and both are necessary conditions that aren't by themselves sufficient without the other (2) The Gettier Problem can ultimately be resolved by seeing that an equivocation is going on.
Finally, I apologize for rambling. I struggle with being both thorough and non-rambley and I tend to prioritize the former ... and I just realized that this is my third consecutive post so I'm sorry for that. I'll try to make sure I don't double or triple post in the future.
Last edited:
Would a fair and charitable interpretation of what you are saying be that outside of the debate forum it's extra important to be fair and charitable towards what other people are saying? That it's still important inside the debate forum but that it's outright against the rules to say stuff like "You're wrong" outside the debate forum ... rather than to more charitably look at what the other person is trying to say and not telling them that you're right and they're wrong? Is that a fair and charitable interpretation of what you're saying here?
Also, even if I misinterpreted you here ... it was in such a case (1) Accidental and, furthermore (2) I'm not saying I disagree with anything! I just want to make sure that I understand you
That seems like a fair and charitable interpretation and unlikely to bring you into conflict with our rules.
Daemon Sophic
Avatar in flux
There are many, with or without nuts in the base layer, but mostly variations on the creamy center layer. You can make it minty, or rasberry, or vanilla cream..etc.... But the traditional is a custard flavor in the layer. I prefer to have a thicker dark chocolate top layer than this recipe indicates.
Nanaimo Bars III Video
Would a fair and charitable interpretation of what you are saying be that outside of the debate forum it's extra important to be fair and charitable towards what other people are saying? That it's still important inside the debate forum but that it's outright against the rules to say stuff like "You're wrong" outside the debate forum ... rather than to more charitably look at what the other person is trying to say and not telling them that you're right and they're wrong? Is that a fair and charitable interpretation of what you're saying here?
Also, even if I misinterpreted you here ... it was in such a case (1) Accidental and, furthermore (2) I'm not saying I disagree with anything! I just want to make sure that I understand you
Oh, another thing. Our procedure is to give a heads-up for most first offenses which doesn't count against you. We generally let you know there is a problem early if we see something.
And if you ever have questions, feel free to ask in Site Feedback, https://www.religiousforums.com/forums/site-feedback.344/. Any thread you start there is only visible between you and the moderation staff,
Daemon Sophic
Avatar in flux
Non-Debate: Interesting. I’ve always thought of the issue as more of a ......Would a fair and charitable interpretation of what you are saying be that outside of the debate forum it's extra important to be fair and charitable towards what other people are saying? That it's still important inside the debate forum but that it's outright against the rules to say stuff like "You're wrong" outside the debate forum ... rather than to more charitably look at what the other person is trying to say and not telling them that you're right and they're wrong? Is that a fair and charitable interpretation of what you're saying here?
Also, even if I misinterpreted you here ... it was in such a case (1) Accidental and, furthermore (2) I'm not saying I disagree with anything! I just want to make sure that I understand you
Debate: Pffft! Try again! You have absolutley no proof of that. I think you just plagarized Tucker Carlson to get what you (sadly) believe to be a point. Here are three links to peer-reviewed journal articles that show....
SESMeT
Member
A key thing there seems to be that debate is about winning and has a competitive element to it.
I don't even care about that sort of thing even when I'm debating! I just try to say what I think is true and if I win that's just a side effect of that ... rather than a goal.
I think, in fact, that is a very important way to look at it. Religion is, like it or not, an immense part of human life and thought, and it is generally impossible to have really meaningful discussions without conceding that some of those you are dialoguing with hold great store by religion.
It's only necessary, really, to look at the titles of some of the world's greatest literature (I'm only going to do English lit, here, for obvious reasons): titles like: "East of Eden, " or "Absolom, Absolom," or "Moab is My Washpot," or "The Sun Also Rises." I've no doubt other linguistic and religious traditions share the same thing.
I'm not in the slightest religious, but if I didn't understand something about the Abrahamic religious traditions, I'd be lost in so many references made in everyday situtations. Thus, even though I'm an atheist, I do not think it a waste of time to pay attention to religion. It's too big a component of my world to ignore.