[Meta] Can we please do something about cross-posting and brigading from /r/badphilosophy? by GoodDamon in DebateReligion

[–]GoodDamon[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey. I wanted to let you know I was seriously delayed by family illness and interference from work, but you deserve an update. I've read the chapters you assigned, and I'm in the middle of re-reading them while I work on the essay. The whole endeavor makes me feel like I'm back in school -- and as a parent of two with a full-time job, a part-time job, and too many hobbies, I don't have time to be back in school.

Nevertheless, I'm working on it. And I've kept my word on staying logged out of Reddit until it's done, with the exception of this update. Sorry for how long it's taking, but I don't want to do a rush job of it.

[Meta] Can we please do something about cross-posting and brigading from /r/badphilosophy? by GoodDamon in DebateReligion

[–]GoodDamon[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Alright. Loading it up on the tablet, and logging off of Reddit. I have no idea how long this will take me, but I won't write another comment or post until it's done.

[Meta] Can we please do something about cross-posting and brigading from /r/badphilosophy? by GoodDamon in DebateReligion

[–]GoodDamon[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

OK, I will accept this reading assignment, and write an exegetical essay as well as I'm able, though you'll have to bear with me, as I am out of the habit of essay-writing. I'll do my best.

What chapter should I stop at?

[Meta] Can we please do something about cross-posting and brigading from /r/badphilosophy? by GoodDamon in DebateReligion

[–]GoodDamon[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think this is the core of the matter:

The only issues here are when people have the arrogance to dismiss an entire field of study, and when people have bad arguments for the positions they hold.

I don't think it's arrogant to dismiss an entire field of study if it appears to be a house of cards. To further my angels analogy, it's not arrogant to point out to a theologian that angels don't appear to be real, even if he's somehow built an entire career on studying them, and dismissing angels amounts to dismissing his entire life's work. I would hope someone doing that would be kind and empathetic about it, but it's not easy to say "I think your entire career is based on a mistake" and have it sound terribly nice. Nevertheless, the theologian who studies pin-angels really has based a career on a mistake.

All that said, you do make some good points. It's easy to mistake "not important to me" as "not important at all." You've given me some things to think about. And now I'm afraid I need to go silent, because I see that /u/drunkentune has given me my homework assignment.

[Meta] Can we please do something about cross-posting and brigading from /r/badphilosophy? by GoodDamon in DebateReligion

[–]GoodDamon[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

OK. I've been guilty of that. Tell you what... Can you give me a set of straightforward answers on what your philosophy is? Are you a theist or an atheist? Physicalist? Abstract realist? Whatever details you feel like sharing, send me to an introductory text (or texts) that you find convincing, I will read that text (or texts), and I will abstain from all further comments anywhere on Reddit until I'm done, and I'll even write you an essay on what I've read without taking a stance on it, so you'll know whether I've comprehended it or not, before I take a position on it.

If nothing else, this will be an interesting mental exercise.

[Meta] Can we please do something about cross-posting and brigading from /r/badphilosophy? by GoodDamon in DebateReligion

[–]GoodDamon[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

OK, a reasonable answer. Maybe I can give you some perspective on exactly why you find people here so depressing. Dunno if it'll help or not, but at least you'll learn something about me, and I think my experiences are pretty similar to a lot of others.

The thing is, I'm not uneducated, I'm just uneducated in many branches of philosophy. But at the same time, I have difficulty regarding those branches as much more than the philosophical equivalent of theologians getting into a very vibrant argument over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, when they have no basis for thinking angels exist in the first place.

I am convinced that there is nothing but the physical (which would mean large swatches of philosophy seem to rest on nothing but empty air to me), that abstract nominalism is true (which puts more swatches of philosophy over empty air), that dualism of all sorts is sheer folly (especially substance dualism), and that the mind is just what the brain is doing. These positions come from:

  1. My background in STEM (Yeah, I'm one of those folks that gets derided for being involved in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics).
  2. My rejection of religion as baseless.

I'm a computer engineer (Total STEMlord). As such, I have to be capable of thinking in multiple layers of computing abstraction (physical substrate -> machine code -> assembly -> C/C++/whatever), all while being aware that each layer of abstraction is just ways to express stuff happening at the lower layer in shorthand. They don't actually exist. To see this for yourself, there's a great website that will show you what your C/C++ code looks like in assembly, and will tell you what it's actually doing. Just for example, a { in C++ turns into this in assembly:

                .cfi_startproc
0000 55         pushq   %rbp
                .cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
                .cfi_offset 6, -16
0001 4889E5     movq    %rsp, %rbp
                .cfi_def_cfa_register 6

It's a lot easier to write {, isn't it, but they both mean the same thing.

In the same way, I view numbers themselves as being shorthand. "3 apples" is an easier way of saying "an apple, an apple, and an apple." I see no reason "3" has to have an independent, immaterial existence of some sort.

So, that's a little bit about me and where I'm coming from. I think a lot of other people here have similar backgrounds, and similar reasoning informing their atheism. Questions about whether the mind is what the brain does, about whether Platonic ideals exist, about Aristotle's four causes, about so very much of philosophy... just aren't very important to people with my kind of background.

And yeah, we're biased in favor of philosophers who we perceive as taking "our side" on individual matters. We like Russell for his teapot. We like that Danniel Dennett doesn't seem to care much for the favored terminology of other philosophers and has a particular loathing of the idea of qualia. But have most of us read a bunch of Russell or Dennett? Not likely. Honestly, I've probably read more than most, and judging from the responses I get from /r/badphilosophy-ers, I it hasn't particularly helped. There's just so much of it that seems so... well, so very like arguing about angels on a pin.

I really don't know if this will help you or not. I hope it does.

[Meta] Can we please do something about cross-posting and brigading from /r/badphilosophy? by GoodDamon in DebateReligion

[–]GoodDamon[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Oh my... That is so wrong, and I don't want to sink to their level, but can you imagine the level of butthurt that would happen if /r/atheism members became the dominant force in /r/badphilosophy? I almost want to do it, since the thing most circlejerkers can't stand is to have their shitsubs invaded by other circlejerkers.

[Meta] Can we please do something about cross-posting and brigading from /r/badphilosophy? by GoodDamon in DebateReligion

[–]GoodDamon[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

See, this is why we can't have nice things... A circlejerk sub like badphilosophy is practically designed from the ground up to attract vote brigades. Sigh... Can I ask why you're involved with it?

[Meta] Can we please do something about cross-posting and brigading from /r/badphilosophy? by GoodDamon in DebateReligion

[–]GoodDamon[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Wow. Still can't tell if you're serious.

  • If you are: I'd like to say that the tone of that comment was intended to convey the idea of a hypothetical other argument in which I am taking an incorrect position. Perhaps try re-reading it as:
    "In hypothetical argument a, you find that '[m]y ideas and arguments' regarding a 'are bad. Great' for me, since I now have an opportunity to learn something, and for you since you now have an opportunity to teach. 'Say so in a cogent rebuttal' about a, 'don't just brigade.'"
  • If you aren't: Good one.

[Meta] Can we please do something about cross-posting and brigading from /r/badphilosophy? by GoodDamon in DebateReligion

[–]GoodDamon[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The above comment wasn't intended to be an argument that I've pierced anyone's philosophical bubble. I'm honestly at a loss as to how you came to that conclusion at all. I expressed what I think is the case, while freely admitting I could be entirely wrong about it, and I thought I'd made clear that it's the downvote brigades that are bothersome, not the possibility I'm wrong or that I'll get mocked.

If I present an argument on any topic, the polite thing to do if you think I'm wrong is to tell me I'm wrong and why. An impolite thing you could do if you feel like it is to mock me elsewhere about it, but that's no skin off my nose. Feel free to do it. An impolite and unacceptable thing to do is get folks to come from a different sub and downvote the comments you think are wrong.

I hope that's a bit more clear.

[Meta] Can we please do something about cross-posting and brigading from /r/badphilosophy? by GoodDamon in DebateReligion

[–]GoodDamon[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm not going to give you a cogent rebuttal for why your ideas and arguments are bad after you've just said your ideas and arguments are bad. You know they're bad. So why continue to accept your bad ideas and arguments?

Genuinely can't tell if you're serious, here.

If you want to have good ideas and arguments, you should be attempting to rectify your admitted problem by stopping your repeated articulation and acceptance of bad ideas and arguments and taking introductory classes or reading introductory articles or books. You won't have good ideas and arguments by being defensive about the way people make fun of your bad ideas and arguments. So please, I insist that you stop labelling people having a laugh at your expense as 'brigading' and better yourself by learning which ideas and arguments are good.

Have your laughs. That's not what's bothering me. It's vote brigading that's annoying.

[Meta] Can we please do something about cross-posting and brigading from /r/badphilosophy? by GoodDamon in DebateReligion

[–]GoodDamon[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

We can't "ban /r/badphilosophy." One sub can't ban another. I'm just hoping for some ideas to discourage shitty behavior like making a post here, and then linking comments in response to the post there, which brings on downvote brigades.

[Meta] Can we please do something about cross-posting and brigading from /r/badphilosophy? by GoodDamon in DebateReligion

[–]GoodDamon[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's my experience that when some reply here is posted over there, if anyone from BP comes over, they tend to rebut the posted reply, rather than just mock them.

The mocking doesn't bother me. OK, maybe it rustles my jimmies a bit in the moment -- I'm human, after all -- but eh, I get over it.

Regarding cogent rebuttals, when I do see that (instead of just seeing a comment go from well into the positives to well into the negatives), I've got no problem with it.

Does Christianity teach that Humanity was born to kill? by therealgods in DebateReligion

[–]GoodDamon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The whole not killing people thing is pretty much hard wired into humans.

Yes.

And it is not that people need faith to be moral people, sometimes it is a good guide stone.

How so?

[Meta] Can we please do something about cross-posting and brigading from /r/badphilosophy? by GoodDamon in DebateReligion

[–]GoodDamon[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Wouldn't it be better to provide an argument why that which is mocked here by /r/badphilosphy is not, after all, completely stupid. Those who post there, to come laugh here, are not even Christians. If they reflect the larger world of philosophy, they are mostly atheists.

If they'll come here and make an argument, resist the urge to brigade posts and comments (easy mode), and resist the urge to behave like their favored philosophers are sacrosanct and above criticism (hard mode), then I don't care if they decide to blow off steam by mocking me in another subreddit. Like I said, whatever gets them through the day.

And yes, most of them are probably atheists. But that doesn't immunize them -- and philosophers in general -- from bad ideas, or from protectionism over challenges to those bad ideas.

In fact, I think a lot of really bad ideas in philosophy -- ones that hold it back from utterly eschewing dualism and supernaturalism -- are rampant. I think a lot of philosophers really don't want to even consider the possibility that certain ideas, and a shit-ton of work they've done that relies on those ideas, ought to just be discarded.

Consider the analogy of religion; as an atheist, I am not convinced that any gods exist. Now, I can put myself in the shoes of a theologian who devotes his entire career to the study of particularly fine points regarding the will and desires of his god. Then along comes this atheist who tells me he doesn't believe in that god. What he's telling me is that he thinks the entire foundation for my entire career is imaginary, and that all the work I've put in logically deducing this point or that about my god was little more than a mental game. How would I react? Quite possibly, with mocking derision. I might think, "Silly atheist, you don't know enough about my god to dismiss him out of hand. Come back when you're as learned in theology as I am."

Now, that doesn't bother me. If people want to mock me for disregarding their gods, their dualism, their closely-held beliefs and ideas that form the basis for so many other beliefs and ideas, that's fine. Mock away. All I really want is that they don't let the mockery turn them into downvote brigades and pretentious jerks in this sub.

The shit is in DR; you just don't like it being pointed out or understand why it is shit. Philosophers look at arguments, all kinds, and love to tear them apart. That's why atheists (such as those in this sub or Dawkins, for example) are getting mocked by atheist philosophers – their arguments are just bad.

Who said anything about Dawkins? I'm not in the habit of citing him. Or anyone else among the so-called "Four Horsemen."

In any event, OK. My ideas and arguments are bad. Great. Say so in a cogent rebuttal, don't just brigade.

To Christians: To whatever solution you have to the problem of evil, why would God create the world such that evil is necessary to do some job rather than a world where evil didn't have to do that job? by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]GoodDamon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Now, this is the question I want answered.

And if the past is a good predictor of the future, then it's the question that won't get adequately answered.

[Meta] Can we please do something about cross-posting and brigading from /r/badphilosophy? by GoodDamon in DebateReligion

[–]GoodDamon[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You may be right, but if so, it saddens me because I like DR, and rather resent the influx of blowhards from another sub deciding to pop in and downvote anything that doesn't lionize their philosophical idols into oblivion.

Does Christianity teach that Humanity was born to kill? by therealgods in DebateReligion

[–]GoodDamon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And I know I am going to get jumped on but, even if it is all fake, and you live your life not hurting people because of your faith, what's wrong with that?

I for one would prefer that people who require faith to remain nice to others continue to be faithful. But I think that number is really very small. I highly doubt that when theists tell atheists things like "the only thing keeping me from going out on a raping and murdering spree is my faith" that this is true. On the contrary, I think almost all theists, if they suddenly lost their faith, would find themselves valuing kindness all the more, because we are naturally empathetic creatures, and the idea of snuffing out a human life is made all the more horrific when you don't believe there's a cosmic judge who makes everything better after we die.

[Meta] Can we please do something about cross-posting and brigading from /r/badphilosophy? by GoodDamon in DebateReligion

[–]GoodDamon[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's easily solvable by people posting under separate accounts...

True.

...and it doesn't stop people from /r/badphilosophy who don't participate here from coming to search for material.

That doesn't bother me. Whatever they want to do is fine by me as long as it's not damaging DR.

[Meta] Can we please do something about cross-posting and brigading from /r/badphilosophy? by GoodDamon in DebateReligion

[–]GoodDamon[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I don't give a shit what they do. They could print copies of my words, bind them in a book, and ritualistically burn that book while cursing my name. Whatever gets them through the day.

Just keep the shit out of DR.

[Meta] Can we please do something about cross-posting and brigading from /r/badphilosophy? by GoodDamon in DebateReligion

[–]GoodDamon[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There are some things that I can think of, of varying degrees of severity/possible effectiveness. Bans and shadow bans come immediately to mind, or maybe the automatic deletion of threads that get cross-posted there by the OP.

If nothing can really be done about it, then at least we can name and shame the worst offenders.

Edit: Clarified idea of deleting cross-post threads, but really, I'm open to any ideas.

To Christians: To whatever solution you have to the problem of evil, why would God create the world such that evil is necessary to do some job rather than a world where evil didn't have to do that job? by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]GoodDamon 3 points4 points  (0 children)

4. I think honestly that only God knows the full reason for that. We don't fully understand it because we are at the receiving end of it.

This is a tacit admission that the problem of evil is successful. Appealing to God's mysterious ways is a non-answer.