This article is a followup to a previous one.
synaps3: Hyeya.
astroo-: Hello people.
fiberpunk: Jo.
Daniel: Hi.
fiberpunk: Hi, Daniel. What's the topic?
Daniel: There is none at the moment.
fiberpunk: Well choose one.
synaps3: Choose you.
fiberpunk: Me. Not sure I'm a good topic. :D But well. Ask.
Daniel: Okay then I choose, the Bible cannot be proven wrong because without it, there is no absolute sense of truth from which to make such a judgment.
synaps3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_philosophy Pick. Daniel, care to elaborate a bit more I don't understand.
fiberpunk: Daniel, I'm not the one talking about the bible. i
Daniel: You asked me to choose a topic.
synaps3: Daniel, can it be proven true?
Daniel: I would say yes, but not in a way that is suitable for this channel.
synaps3: So no then. I mean it is either true or not right.
Daniel: My assertion is, you cannot prove that it is not true.
synaps3: Channel doesn't matter.
fiberpunk: Daniel, all bible, religion related topics are super boring.
synaps3: Well I cannot prove any old book not to be true, or most of their parts.
fiberpunk: If you want to discuss religion its maybe the wrong channel.
synaps3: Ah but philosophy of religion. Is okay here. ii
fiberpunk: I don't understand religious people a lot. Sometimes it amazes me how lonely one intelligent person is in the world surrounded by idiots.
synaps3: Edgy.
Daniel: If one were to analyze the Bible with sincerity, they would come to the conclusion that it prescribes a religion which very few actually adhere to, including most people who claim to believe it.
iz: https://aeon.co/essays/so-you-re-surrounded-by-idiots-guess-who-the-real-jerk-is
synaps3: Daniel, probably same for every other big religion. I ain't fan of religion based morals, or prescriptions for behavior.
Daniel: Such an analysis would also reveal that it says those few who actually believe in it will be the only people in the world spared from eternal destruction in the lake of fire. iii
BillyHW: :/
synaps3: If it is true, which it probably isn't.
Daniel: But you agree, it's impossible to prove it isn't true.
synaps3: Not in a way that gives to truth of bible. I'd place a that bible isn't true if there is that bet. And I'd argue that burden of proof is on people claiming it to be true. iv
Daniel: Not a good bet in terms of risk reward. v
synaps3: Maybe [this network] is missing a religion channel.
blkshp: Give the bible a rest eh.
synaps3: Oh, there is one.
Daniel: I'm in those channels too, but analysis of the Bible shows that it tells believers to preach its message "everywhere."
synaps3: So we take quran then. Okay, so lets move discussion there.
blkshp: Daniel, are you going to stop preaching here? vi
synaps3: Leave this place for phil talk.
Daniel: I can stop discussing the analysis of the Bible if you would like, blkshp.
blkshp: Permanently.
Daniel: You should put that in the rules so that other people will know that it's not okay to discuss the philosophy of religion, because I'm not the only one who thought that was okay to do.
blkshp: Check the rules. They were changed this very afternoon.
Daniel: Synaps3, name the place, or PM me.
synaps3: https://pastebin.com/raw/yXEap67s vii this? ##religion, Daniel.
blkshp: https://pastebin.com/raw/AuEZgDPe. viii That is the current rules in the current topic.
pug: The rules were updated by chanserv roughly eight hours ago and is linked in the active topic. It was also announced to the channel.
Daniel: I don't understand how I've violated the updated rules, but I'll take your word for it.
synaps3: Cool.
pug: "Religious topics ought to be dealt with rigorously and include citations to relevant philosophical resources or else are inappropriate." -From Rule 1. .title https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-religion/
nalpre: [ Philosophy of Religion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) ]
pug: There are resources on IEP and a heap of citations to be referenced on philpapers.org. Etc... ix
fiberpunk: lol
pug: Talking about a lake of fire and making statements that end in phrases like "...preach its message everywhere" are not on the level of what we think of as rigorous or of a philosophical tone, Daniel.
fiberpunk: Haha.
Daniel: I guess what I don't understand is why certain man-made texts are okay to use as citations, and other "man-made" texts are not allowed.
fiberpunk: Now it gets complicated.
Daniel: Pug, I'm sorry, that was my analysis of the text being discussed.
pug: We're talking about referring to resources that are within the tradition such as those linked to in the topic. If you look at the article I linked to you'll notice that philosophers put some distance between themselves and the traditions being discussed in an effort to avoid biases and because we're being intentionally critical. The Bible is a Theological text and you're assuming the ideology as a foundation for your analysis without referring to any other documents or stances for comparison. In short, Daniel, this isn't a philosophical discussion. At best it hints at a philosophical attitude.
Daniel: Is it possible to talk about the Bible in such a way that is acceptable in this channel?
fiberpunk: Please don't.
blkshp: Daniel, we have seen that this is your primary focus. The fact that you are asking if there is any way to discuss the bible even after all has been said suggests that is the only topic you want to discuss. x It's not gonna fly here.
pug: Daniel, if you look at the article I linked or check for related entries on IEP xi or SEP xii you might find some suitable topics. There are very likely people you could contrast with who are recognized philosophical figures who discuss biblical material in the context of philosophy. xiii
pug: Kierkegaard, for example. Fear and Trembling uses biblical references.
Daniel: I do not "recognize" these sources and people that you suggest.
pug: Time for some research? That's what we're here for. ##philosophy. Anyhow, I've got to find something to eat. Cheers, y'all.
Not enough time, apparently. I got banned not long after this conversation, with no reason given. I then reached out to an operator, to inquire why. Not that I think I'll be able to talk myself out of this one, but at least it should make for an interesting article.
Daniel: Hi.
nalkri: Hello, why are you sending me private messages?
Daniel: I think you are an operator in ##philosophy, and I was banned from there and I don't know why. Wasn't given any warning.
nalkri: Yes, you are banned until 2027.
Daniel: lol Any reason why?
nalkri: I didn't set the ban, but I'd guess your lack of engagement in any philosophical way.
Daniel: I'm trying to work with your rules. Doesn't that seem like a rather excessive amount of time?
nalkri: I don't know the context as I said, and I've seen no evidence of you trying to work within the rules. xiv
Daniel: Well, I'm unashamedly in favor of the Bible, and my goal is to warn people about the eternal destruction that awaits them for not believing in it, but I was honestly trying to do so within the restraints of your rules. If such a thing is not possible to do, you should probably say so in the rules. Something like, "do not speak in favor of the Bible in this channel." Or, "believers in the Bible are not welcome here."
nalkri: Glad that's all settled, have a nice day. :) xv
nalkri: Neither of those things are true, please stop messaging me now.
Daniel: Apparently they are true.
nalkri: Stop messaging me now. Your neediness is not my responsibility.
Sometime later, I got a message from another operator.
blkshp: Daniel, the ban in ##Philosophy and ##Philosophy-off is for the following reasons: Inappropriate updates of conversations to a public facing website in violation of non-publishing requirements without permission. We don't want our conversations reviewed and published online and there is significant evidence of this. xvi Additionally we have requested the lack of religious context and it seems that this is what you want to discuss and frankly we don't. I appreciate you have your values, but sorry, that's just not what we're about here and we don't want converting or being preached to.
Blkshp will be back in 30 minutes.
Daniel: I had not yet published any conversations from ##philosophy. xvii
blkshp: But you have shown a pattern of behavior that is against the rules of the channel and advice of the network.
Daniel: And why wouldn't you want your conversations published? What is there to hide?
blkshp: Having something to hide is not the purpose of not wanting things published. Look up the "GDPR." xviii
Daniel: Ah, I'm not located in the EU.
blkshp: Irrelevant. Anything that holds the data of a member of the EU must not be stored without willing permission anything that is a corporation or legally defined entity. xix
Daniel: Maybe in 2027 that stupid law won't exist anymore and I'll give this another try.
blkshp: The law and the opinion of the operators of this channel make that unlikely. We do not agree with this Zealousy that you are exhibiting and certainly not having it proof read and published. xx
Daniel: Nobody knows what tomorrow will bring. xxi
blkshp: This is true. I wish you a good evening regardless.
This is a similar spirit of deception I have encountered many times over. It's usually the case that I'm banned, not because of my beliefs, but because of some other convenient reason.
- Interesting that he would go out of his way to say this, in light of what happens to me as a result of this conversation. ^
- This is coded language for, "it's okay to talk about religion as long as you have only bad things to say about it." ^
- My attempt at warning them in such a way that conforms with their absurd channel rules against using the Bible as a credible source. ^
- It's against the rules for me to establish such a proof. ^
- The risk is eternal destruction and the reward is some finite amount of money. ^
- Can you tell this guy is an operator yet? He's laying it on pretty thick. ^
- Paste quoted here:
- - - freenode ##philosophy channel guidelines (as of June 2018) - - -
1) Discussion of specifically/academically philosophical issues (e.g. metaphysics, epistemology, ethics) is ideally the channel's bread-and butter.
However, conversations on a very wide range of topics -- for example, recent events, politics, science, and literature -- are welcomed, as long as they are approached philosophically. You don't have to be versed in philosophy jargon to participate -- just come with an inquisitive mind!
2) It's important to be respectful and thoughtful when participating in a discussion. Intellectual dishonesty (e.g., concern-trolling, creating strawmen) is contrary to the basic pursuit of philosophy.
3) Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, personal attacks, and other bigoted/hateful commentary (as determined by a moderator) are not tolerated.
4) The moderators are open to feedback and concerns, but their decisions are final -- ##philosophy is not a democracy. (Plato would be proud!)
5) Anything not covered by these guidelines is subject to the discretion of individual moderators.
- Paste quoted here:
- - - freenode ##philosophy channel guidelines (as of March 2019) - - -
1) Discussion of specifically/academically philosophical issues (e.g. metaphysics, epistemology, ethics) is ideally the channel's bread-and butter.
However, conversations on a very wide range of topics -- for example, recent events, politics, science, and literature -- are welcomed, as long as they are approached philosophically. You don't have to be versed in philosophy jargon to participate -- just come with an inquisitive mind!
Off-topic discussion ideally belongs in ##philosophy-off and religious topics ought to be dealt with rigorously and include citations to relevant philosophical resources or else are inappropriate.
2) It's important to be respectful and thoughtful when participating in a discussion. Intellectual dishonesty (e.g., concern-trolling, creating strawmen) is contrary to the basic pursuit of philosophy.
3) Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, personal attacks, and other bigoted/hateful commentary (as determined by a moderator) are not tolerated.
4) Discussing channel politics is considered off-topic. The moderators are open to feedback and concerns, but their decisions are final -- ##philosophy is not a democracy. (Plato would be proud!)
5) Anything not covered by these guidelines is subject to the discretion of individual moderators.
Changes emphasized in bold. ^
- If I understand this correctly, you're only allowed to discuss the philosophy already agreed on by the operators. ^
- Pretty much. ^
- "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy." ^
- "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy." ^
- This is basically like a false christian channel saying I can only discuss the Bible using references by false teachers. ^
- It gives me the creeps how much these people sound like government bureaucrats. ^
- This message came in simultaneously with mine. Not sure if it was scripted to go off, or just a coincidence. ^
- Oh hey, they found my website without me ever linking to it! Which means they probably got sufficient warning about the peril that awaits them in the lake of fire. I'm somewhat satisfied with this outcome. ^
- And he's assuming I didn't get permission to publish those conversations. ^
- "General Data Protection Regulation." It's a law in the European Union that prohibits companies from storing data about their users without permission. ^
- Is this seriously supposed to mean that I have to submit to the laws of a state in which I do not live? ^
- Heh, they specifically don't want Darwin reading their coversation. ^
- James 4:
14 whereas you do not know what will happen tomorrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away.