How to hide a category from the main page
I didn't know this functionality existed until today, when @Daniel explained it here.
If you click on a category in the left hand menu (on mobile these are under Categories in the top right menu) and scroll to the bottom, there is an icon button of an eye, which toggles the main page visibility of discussions in that category.
If you click on a category in the left hand menu (on mobile these are under Categories in the top right menu) and scroll to the bottom, there is an icon button of an eye, which toggles the main page visibility of discussions in that category.
Comments (35)
Finally, no excuse for anti-religious bigotry in "Philosophy of Religion" threads.
Definition of bigotry - The character or mode of thought of a bigot; obstinate and unreasonable attachment to a particular creed, opinion, practice, ritual, or party organization; excessive zeal or warmth in favor of a party, sect, or opinion; intolerance of the opinions of others.
No further questions. I rest my case. That's the name of that tune. Nuff said. Quod erat demonstrandum.
How is that relevant to your behavior?
Klaatu barada nikto
Sounds like all humans are naturally bigots by this definition. There are any number of non-harmful(?) ways of being which will elicit intolerance of others with appeal to what is (sub)culturally normal.
Twas brillig and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe.
Are you implying what I said is just nonsense. Why not just say so explicitly.
Quoting Benkei
If you had been paying attention you would know that whether they are believed to work or not depends on what your unarguable founding presuppositions are; there can be no definitive demonstration that they do or do not work; the possibility of such demonstration exists only in the domain of logic or the empirical.
Yes. That was my point in the whole exchange - Now that we can block whole categories, anti-religious people can avoid the whole problem rather than whining and growling over religious threads.
I saw them as a helpful way to learn the basic structure of syllogisms and to locate errors within them during my introductory philosophy classes, but if you walked away from that thinking God had been proven (or disproven) by the sheer force of logic alone, I think you missed something.
I'm not in favor of encouraging those who disagree with a topic to avoid that topic so as to allow those in agreement to hold their conversations in peace. If you advocate a position in a philosophy forum, there should be an expectation you'll receive vigorous disagreement.
In fact, if someone finds it insulting to be challenged as to their religious beliefs, then it would make better sense for that person to avoid those topics.
:chin:
Yes, I agree, but my post was in response to @Benkei's provocative post. See below.
Quoting T Clark
I'm all for respectful, responsive comments from non-theists in posts on religious subjects. Many anti-religion posts are neither.
Right, no deductive argument is stronger than it's premises (assumptions); but I think it is likely that only those among the religious who don't understand that believe that the arguments for the existence of God constitute absolute proofs. The arguments can be thought to "work" without the requirement that they be absolute proofs; like any valid argument the requirement is that the conclusion follows from the premises.
Quoting T Clark
Indeed! That said I find it hard to understand how they could not simply ignore anything they found distasteful or could find no interest in. When I look at the main page I see only what interests me, and the rest is a blur.
God is a pathetically persistent fairy tale people keep wanting to rationalise and when it's pointed out it's all crap, because none of those arguments work, some complain about manners. I wasn't even talking to Clarky. If anybody would start a thread about proof that unicorns existed he'd be summarily banned for low quality. Such is the immersion in Christian culture we can't even admit it's crap and then I'm the one being "provocative" and "disrespectful" for pointing it out. It's so sad that it's funny again. Anything worthwhile that can be found in religion, is easily subsumed under ethics and metaphysics. Plenty of good thinkers wasted their lives working on Christian dogma and it has resulted in some decent insights.
The real issue is where exactly does the failure lie. Is the failure in the deductive logic, or in the induction? So, the cosmological argument for example, all material things have a cause, a cause is prior in time to the effect, therefore the first material thing has a prior cause which cannot be a material thing, and this we call "God".
The only real failure here is in the inductive premises concerning the causation of material objects. But when inductive premises are seen to be deprived of certainty in this way, it casts doubt on all scientific knowledge.
Solution: place this thread into a blocked category and quickly forget about it.
Your post is well-expressed, and I agree. If religious posts are put into Philosophy of Religion, then those who are offended by arguments for the existence of God can just block the whole category.
Curious, that your thread on a simple technical feature had been metamorphosed into a discussion of the arguments for the existence of god.
A sign of divergent and creative thinking or exemplary of a ubiquitous superficial preoccupation?
A bit of both, maybe?
Most importantly, it has allowed this notice to remain in or around the top of the main page, allowing all the active members to see it.
It's more of an argument about whether religious people and their beliefs deserve to be treated evenhandedly on the forum. I think the new feature @Jamal has identified can grease the squeaky wheels on both sides in that regard.