A&A Feedback

Peregrinus

legspin wrote: »

Not as off-topic as you may think. They are dealing with topics of a moral and ethical nature. We just discuss them without religion having any say in the matter.

Ethical discussions belong in philosophy or humanities. The mere fact that a discussion doesn't mention "God" isn't enough to make it an atheist discussion in any meaningful sense. If it were, 99% of the material on boards.ie. should be in this forum.

Cantremember

Peregrinus wrote: »

Ethical discussions belong in philosophy or humanities. The mere fact that a discussion doesn't mention "God" isn't enough to make it an atheist discussion in any meaningful sense. If it were, 99% of the material on boards.ie. should be in this forum.

Untrue. Ethics can be discussed in a variety of fora if appropriate. It's ridiculous and typical of supernaturalism to tell others what they can and cannot do of course.

Cantremember

A topic raised before is the placing of A&A under religion and spirituality. It's entirely inappropriate. We're not a branch of supernaturalism and being placed here is an insult. A&A deserves the space to be treated as a life view without being placed under the umbrella of a life view most of us regard with complete derision.

qt3.14

Cantremember wrote: »

A topic raised before is the placing of A&A under religion and spirituality. It's entirely inappropriate. We're not a branch of supernaturalism and being placed here is an insult. A&A deserves the space to be treated as a life view without being placed under the umbrella of a life view most of us regard with complete derision.

Plus it's definitionally exclusionary, there's ignostics and apatheists too!

looksee

qt3.14 wrote: »

Plus it's definitionally exclusionary, there's ignorstics and apatheists too!

Fixed that for you.

I love that word apatheists, suits a lot of people I think. Including me.

qt3.14

looksee wrote: »

Fixed that for you.

Nope, ignostic is a thing, basically the position that theological concepts such as god etc are bereft of cognitive meaningfulness in the philosophical sense. With no coherent definitions available any possible debate of the terms is nonsensical.

Absolam

What's the difference between cognitive meaningfulness and meaningfulness?

robindch

jank wrote: »

You just can't help yourself can you Robin. What you did just there would have earned you a card in practically every other forum on boards including AH. But we all know where my reported post in this forum will go Dear Leader.

I must apologize for my response to your original unhelpful post - not only for the delay in replying (I've been out sick for most of the last month, and for most of that, available only on mobile which is a less than ideal platform for boards), but also for the nature of the reply, which I should explain.

Here in A+A, we like to keep a light hand on moderation, particularly with respect to posters holding views which are not held by the majority of others. Hence when somebody makes a comment which violates the word or spirit of the charter, or looks like they may soon do so, we typically try to defuse the issue with a little humor rather than coming in hot and heavy, threatening cards, bans and so on. This, we have found, usually keeps the forum running a little more smoothly. You are correct to point out that highlighting errors in a poster's grammar is generally frowned upon on boards, but it's arguably understandable in the case where doing so is used to avoid a more serious public reprimand which would be likely to cause greater offence, particularly from a poster with a history of commenting publicly about their unhappiness with A+A in general, with its moderation policy, with its moderators, with its alleged bias and so much that it's almost, but not quite, an enduring mystery why you continue to post here.

Had I known that you'd have tended that throwaway comment - posted in a hurry at ten-to-beer on a Friday evening in November - to the extent that you appear to have since done, I'd have avoided the easygoing approach and instead issued you with a formal threat of moderator action.

This topic is now closed in A+A. Any further commentary is directed to the site feedback forum.

Cantremember

Absolam wrote: »

What's the difference between cognitive meaningfulness and meaningfulness?

I'll be willing to bet that your answer includes the alleged deity. How about you skip three pages of saying nothing and just say that you love Jesus.

Absolam

Cantremember wrote: »

I'll be willing to bet that your answer includes the alleged deity. How about you skip three pages of saying nothing and just say that you love Jesus.

That's novel. I didn't for a second think that qt3.14 would have an answer that involved loving Jesus, but now I'm fascinated by what possible chain of logic could have lead you to that conclusion? And, of course, if qt3.14 is going to concur.....


[edit] Actually, don't answer just yet qt3.14.... Depending on just how much you love Jesus it may be worthwhile having a conversation after Cantremember gets back to us.

Catremememeber.... What exactly are you willing to bet?

Cantremember

Absolam wrote: »

That's novel. I didn't for a second think that qt3.14 would have an answer that involved loving Jesus, but now I'm fascinated by what possible chain of logic could have lead you to that conclusion? And, of course, if qt3.14 is going to concur.....


[edit] Actually, don't answer just yet qt3.14.... Depending on just how much you love Jesus it may be worthwhile having a conversation after Cantremember gets back to us.

Catremememeber.... What exactly are you willing to bet?

QED. See, meaningless gibberish. I'd bet you a battalion of angels. Archangels if you want. Oh wait a minute....

qt3.14

Absolam wrote: »

What's the difference between cognitive meaningfulness and meaningfulness?

Been a while since I read Wittgenstein but it was basically to distinguish subjects that were verifiable or at least subject to reason. Afair it was to establish a new scientific philosophy where only the above were worth even having a discussion on.

So, an ignostic would regard the statements I believe/I don't believe in god about as sensible a topic for discussion as I believe/I don't believe in fod. Basically denying that theological concepts have even a basic worthiness of being discussed seriously.

I could be misremembering though!

Absolam

qt3.14 wrote: »

Been a while since I read Wittgenstein but it was basically to distinguish subjects that were verifiable or at least subject to reason. Afair it was to establish a new scientific philosophy where only the above were worth even having a discussion on.
So, an ignostic would regard the statements I believe/I don't believe in god about as sensible a topic for discussion as I believe/I don't believe in fod. Basically denying that theological concepts have even a basic worthiness of being discussed seriously.
I could be misremembering though!

Ah... I would have thought that the statement 'I do not believe in God' would be verifiable both logically and empirically, rendering it cognitively meaningful in the Wittgensteinian sense. It's an odd bit of philosophy, but one I will enjoy reading about, thanks!

But to the more entertaining point; you have (unfortunately) mentioned god in your reply; but are you referring to 'the alleged deity' in Cantremembers post? Also, in less that three pages if you can, do you love Jesus? No pressure, but I'd quite like to see how he delivers a battalion of archangels....

Cantremember

Absolam wrote: »

Ah... I would have thought that the statement 'I do not believe in God' would be verifiable both logically and empirically, rendering it cognitively meaningful in the Wittgensteinian sense. It's an odd bit of philosophy, but one I will enjoy reading about, thanks!

But to the more entertaining point; you have (unfortunately) mentioned god in your reply; but are you referring to 'the alleged deity' in Cantremembers post? Also, in less that three pages if you can, do you love Jesus? No pressure, but I'd quite like to see how he delivers a battalion of archangels....

Any Angels today Absolam? Lol.

Absolam

Cantremember wrote: »

Any Angels today Absolam? Lol.

I'm still waiting to find out. But I hope you have plenty of gift wrap... It is Christmas after all.

Cantremember

Absolam wrote: »

I'm still waiting to find out. But I hope you have plenty of gift wrap... It is Christmas after all.

Keep gritting those teeth Absolam! Angels and archangels by the battalion. LMAO.

Turtwig

Folks, I may be too tired and lazy to read your posts. I am certainly very confused as to what the actual feedback is relating to wittenstein or someone and cognitive meaningfullness.

Anyone wanna game of battleship or Jenga?
/////

MOD:

Cantremember wrote: »

Any Angels today Absolam? Lol.

Cantremember wrote: »

Keep gritting those teeth Absolam! Angels and archangels by the battalion. LMAO.

Did s/he forget to send you a Christmas card or something? No need for such personal quips anywhere on this forum. Even more so at Christmas. Please make him/her some humble pie and apologise. Thanks.

Cantremember

Turtwig wrote: »

Folks, I may be too tired and lazy to read your posts. I am certainly very confused as to what the actual feedback is relating to wittenstein or someone and cognitive meaningfullness.

Anyone wanna game of battleship or Jenga?

That stuff can be safely ignored. Even poor old Wittgenstein had a philosophy of two halves. Kindly take a look at my feedback contributions: A&A needs a new home so we can escape the religion umbrella and become less defined by rejection of it.

Absolam

Qt3.14 feels that the term A&A is exclusionary, as it does not allow for Ignostics, which is a position based on Wittgensteinian philosophy.
Cantrememember has bet a battalion of Archangels that the answer to my question to qt3.14 about the basis of the terminology employed by Wittgenstein will involve a reference to an alleged deity, and would like qt3.14 to just say that they love Jesus.

There you are, all wrapped up for you

Turtwig

Wha?

Oh yeah and it's not really exclusionary towards ignostics.

Hotblack Desiato

Cantremember wrote: »

That stuff can be safely ignored. Even poor old Wittgenstein had a philosophy of two halves. Kindly take a look at my feedback contributions: A&A needs a new home so we can escape the religion umbrella and become less defined by rejection of it.

Ireland is still a religion dominated society - the non-religious are still marked apart by their rejection of the 'norm', and have fewer legal rights.

If there were no such thing as theism then there'd be no such thing as atheism either, but we are where we are.

Atheism and atheist activism are a counterstrike of sorts to religion, and a challenge to the idea that religion is sane never mind normal. The yang to religion's ying. Much as I dislike religion, A&A does belong where it is.

Cantremember

Turtwig wrote: »

Did s/he forget to send you a Christmas card or something? No need for such personal quips anywhere on this forum. Even more so at Christmas. Please make him/her some humble pie and apologise. Thanks.

Certainly not. Gritting his teeth is a personal "quip"? Pointing out the absurdity of having a bet where he stands to win a battalion of angels is not allowed in A&A???

And since when did Christmas become a special time in A &A?

For all the above reasons your reprimand is absurd.

Cantremember

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Ireland is still a religion dominated society - the non-religious are still marked apart by their rejection of the 'norm', and have fewer legal rights.

If there were no such thing as theism then there'd be no such thing as atheism either, but we are where we are.

Atheism and atheist activism are a counterstrike of sorts to religion, and a challenge to the idea that religion is sane never mind normal. The yang to religion's ying. Much as I dislike religion, A&A does belong where it is.

I disagree with very little of this except the placement of A&A. The forum should be called life views or something: religions are one such, A&A another, humanism a third. Religions should have sub forums for Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Scientology , spaghetti monster etc. That would make far more logical sense.

qt3.14

Absolam wrote: »

Ah... I would have thought that the statement 'I do not believe in God' would be verifiable both logically and empirically, rendering it cognitively meaningful in the Wittgensteinian sense. It's an odd bit of philosophy, but one I will enjoy reading about, thanks!

But to the more entertaining point; you have (unfortunately) mentioned god in your reply; but are you referring to 'the alleged deity' in Cantremembers post? Also, in less that three pages if you can, do you love Jesus? No pressure, but I'd quite like to see how he delivers a battalion of archangels....

The very concept of God isn't verifiable logically and empirically though, I think is the point.
And, I'm happy to say that I do love the aforementioned quasi-historical literary figure. I get a few days off every thanks to him!

Absolam

. No Angels then

Cantremember

Absolam wrote: »

. No Angels then

Disappointment awaits all those who expect them.

qt3.14

Absolam wrote: »

. No Angels then

You're an angel! Aren't you? Coochy-coo. :pac:

Absolam

Well..... Someone did say "you're cherubic" once. That's what it sounded like anyway.

Hotblack Desiato

There is nothing wrong with saying "Ann Coulter is a person whose death I will celebrate." She is an absolutely hateful person.

We can post pictures of Mohammad but not say things about Ann Coulter, funny old world innit.

Aenaes

Ann Coulter's representatives may sue for monetary compensation.

Mohammad's representatives may do other things but not that.

Money rules. :P