The current state of the Religion and Philosophy forum

[Star Of The Sea]

Greetings

Well at the moment this particular forum is going through something of a fallow period. Whilst UndercoverElephant and Franko were certainly not to everyone's taste(!) it has to be said that what they discussed were the 'big' questions: free will, determinism, the nature of mind, God, metaphysics etc. Thus these threads were the catalyst for some excellent debate and discussion, and a great deal of frank exchanges and made this forum a 'must-visit' for many, including me.

In addition, many different shades of opinion were reflected, with the full spectrum from reductionist materialist to devout Christian represented. While things got heated from time to time, there was a great 'atmosphere' around here and I looked forward to reading it.

Now, with the departure of key players and some recent trends, the R and P forum has gone downhill rapidly. While you cannot judge a thread by the title, a cursory glance at most posts recently reveals a trend towards petty religious cheap shots, puerile attempts at comedy, and ill-informed diatribes. Most people clearly find this nonsense as boring as I do and it soon disappears off the first page, and moderation soon takes care of the rest, although it speaks volumes that this level of 'hands-on' moderation has only recently had to be used, a sign in itself of the current state of affairs. However, the same culprits daily start fresh threads of the same hogwash.

I don't want to name names, but it is abundantly clear who I'm talking about: a glance at the threads will reveal the same dreary immaturity, the same handful of names, and the same handful of those who reply.

The effect of this is that people who used to make this forum so great simply don't contribute any more. This in turn makes the problem worse because there are less and less 'gems' to be found amongst the dross.

So, what's to be done? Frankly, I'm not sure. I used to think that a forum's quality tends to be self-regulating in that interesting debate attracts interesting debaters, but now it seems that people are more into a more, ahem, superfical level if discussion. Ask yourself honestly: if you came across the Religion and Philosophy forum for the first time today, what would you think of it? My answer to that question is I would think it was full of cranks and kiddies out to shock, and a waste of my time, and look elswhere. Who knows how many people coming across the forum recently have written it off like that, and who could have been excellent additions.

Sadly, 'empty vessels make the most noise', and it looks like the rattling will continue here for a while yet. I can't remember the last thread about philosophy literally, the 'love of knowledge' here on the forum supposed to be about it. What a sad state of affairs.


Let's hope this trough is over soon, and we have another peak.

regards,

Luke

[Martin]

So start some smegging threads, already.

[Star Of The Sea]

Hahahahaaha, touché!

:D

Unfortunately, any thread is trollbait, these days. Sad but true :( Just wait until you see what happens to this one.

regards,

Luke

[evildave]

Well, besides the lack of evidence one way or another on any of those points, most of what Franko "debated" about was what the gibberish he demanded "a-theists" must believe.

Coin always landing tails, car driving self, atheists are nazis, matter obeys, etc.

BIG ISSUES! Yeah. Right.

Alas, another somebody-missing-Franko topic.

As for UCE, he hasn't been gone 10 days, and you "miss him"?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Star Of The Sea

Unfortunately, any thread is trollbait, these days. Sad but true :( Just wait until you see what happens to this one.


That's one of the reasons I posted my "Creationism" rant in Banter. Inasmuch as it was indeed a rant, it was an honest one - and I wanted to start discussion. If I had started it here, it probably wouldn't have been taken seriously, and would've fallen into a shallow nothing-thread, full of smarta$$ remarks and the aforementioned "cheap shots".

I do remember the times when I posted nearly exclusively in this forum. But, if I may...I sensed the problem and lost interest in this forum a little while before Franko et al jumped ship.

[Star Of The Sea]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi




I do remember the times when I posted nearly exclusively in this forum. But, if I may...I sensed the problem and lost interest in this forum a little while before Franko et al jumped ship.

Oh, absolutely- this is not just about Franko and UndercoverElephant, at all. But at least their presence provided some scenery, you know what I mean.

As for posting in Banter, it is true that the discussion ensuing in your thread there is of a far higher calibre than it would have been here. How absurd that you have to discuss Religion and Philosophy in the Banter forum, while the Religion and Philosophy forum is full of worthless Banter!

regards,

Luke

[The Fool]

Star of the Sea.
Cry me a river.....I believe the trolls left when the goal was achieved. They had reduced the entire R&P forum to a troll fest. Then franko/wraith/muscleman got bored.
Beware "the good old days" syndrome. I seem to remember a large chorus of "R&P is stuffed" going on all through this "golden age"

[Darat]

Originally posted by Star Of The Sea
...snip....

I don't want to name names, but it is abundantly clear who I'm talking about: a glance at the threads will reveal the same dreary immaturity, the same handful of names, and the same handful of those who reply.

...snip...


You called someone out in a previous thread for "insinuating" something about another poster. May I suggest that if you hold these views you have the courage to name who you are referring to? I see you have no issue with naming posters you approve.

If you are referring to for instance Shemp (as I believe you may be) then perhaps you should do him the courtesy of naming him rather then just insinuating it?


Originally posted by Star Of The Sea

The effect of this is that people who used to make this forum so great simply don't contribute any more. This in turn makes the problem worse because there are less and less 'gems' to be found amongst the dross.


Can you quantify this or is it just that some of the posters you like don't post any longer? There are many posters who have come and gone over the years here, for instance Potatostew who in my opinion added quality to the threads, the board has always been in flux with "good" and "bad" contributors coming and going. (Sadly PS doesn't seem very active these days - perhaps he will return?)

I am so grateful that a vast majority of threads are no longer being "hijacked" by Franko and to a lesser degree UCE, they made it almost impossible, at times, to discuss anything other then their respective monomania.


Originally posted by Star Of The Sea


So, what's to be done? Frankly, I'm not sure. I used to think that a forum's quality tends to be self-regulating in that interesting debate attracts interesting debaters, but now it seems that people are more into a more, ahem, superfical level if discussion. Ask yourself honestly: if you came across the Religion and Philosophy forum for the first time today, what would you think of it? My answer to that question is I would think it was full of cranks and kiddies out to shock, and a waste of my time, and look elswhere. Who knows how many people coming across the forum recently have written it off like that, and who could have been excellent additions.


You hit the nail on the head here with "Who knows how many people..... ?" - because no one does - perhaps we've not lost person that you would consider an "excellent addition".

Originally posted by Star Of The Sea

Sadly, 'empty vessels make the most noise', and it looks like the rattling will continue here for a while yet. I can't remember the last thread about philosophy literally, the 'love of knowledge' here on the forum supposed to be about it. What a sad state of affairs.


Perhaps that explains why Franko and UCE are among the most prolific posters on the whole forum even though 99+% of their posts are on one subject and in one section? ;)

Originally posted by Star Of The Sea


Let's hope this trough is over soon, and we have another peak.


Just so I can understand this - can you give me a date spread of when the R&P section was at a "peak"? I'd like to go and look at the threads that were active then.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Star Of The Sea


Oh, absolutely- this is not just about Franko and UndercoverElephant, at all. But at least their presence provided some scenery, you know what I mean.

As for posting in Banter, it is true that the discussion ensuing in your thread there is of a far higher calibre than it would have been here. How absurd that you have to discuss Religion and Philosophy in the Banter forum, while the Religion and Philosophy forum is full of worthless Banter!

regards,

Luke

Totally disagree with you both - have you read some of the very detailed discussion threads here in the last few weeks?

[metacristi]

Ask yourself honestly: if you came across the Religion and Philosophy forum for the first time today, what would you think of it?

When I first arrived on this forum [someone on another,dying,site recommended it] the first thing I 've remarked was that...there were very few threads which really deserved to be labeled 'philosophical'.I had had on other sites some very good exchanges of ideas regarding the philosophy of religion and of science and the level seen here...well,though I do not like to say that,was well under that I had been accustomed to,in the majority of threads.Primarily that's why,probably,not too many people I know followed here...Secondly,yes very important,it's the atmosphere,too 'tense',too many animosities.Unfortunately,instead of having civilised discussions,based on logic,as between friends who try to find some answers-though disagreeing very often-the threads turn almost invariably into 'open fights';this could easily make some very good debaters go away...especially if they are believers not interested in proselytising-I've seen enough many such people:why lose precious time with people who have already made their minds,incapable to at least be aware that we should always be open to change...nothing is 'set in stone' forever,not even some of our today's 'scientific truths'.
However,in spite of the small number of really good threads,since I am much more interested in the philosophy of science,much more covered here,I've decided to stay.Now I do not regret that,there is an enough small 'band' of good debaters [believers included] and a very tense atmosphere indeed,though the range of the topics debated and the quality of some threads is enough to make many educated people to stay...at least to read if not to contribute...I'm sure this board will host many other high quality discussions...

[Man of jade]

When I first arrived there was many good threads, and the bad ones were few and far between. Right now on the R&P forum, I see no good threads...

[Darat]

Originally posted by Man of jade
When I first arrived there was many good threads, and the bad ones were few and far between. Right now on the R&P forum, I see no good threads...

Hmm... perhaps it's a personal point of view becuase looking at the front page I can see many threads that I think have or are having good debates, discussions and exchange of views, these are:

Survey about creationism
Is it right to confront the religious with their mythology?
Are Atheists Harder on Christianity than Judaism?
It's not religion I hate, but priests
Is "respecting" a religion worship?
Is The ' Lords Supper ' a cannibalistic ritual?
Poll: What kind of 'materialist' are you?
What led me to God
Former Atheists
On Remorse
Poll: Are people being disrespectful towards...
Pope confirms Roman Catholic Church separation
Even more Catholics behaving badly

Yes there is a lot of "light wieght" contributions (including my own) in these threads but on the whole there are plenty of diverse and interesting threads around. (Compared to just 6 weeks ago there are more subjects being discussed.)

[Loki]

Star Of The Sea,

Whilst UndercoverElephant and Franko were certainly not to everyone's taste(!) it has to be said that what they discussed were the 'big' questions:
Actually, I think they only ever discussed their own pet "big" question. In fact, they took (especially Franko) any and every opportunity to divert any thread onto their own personal tracks.

...the R and P forum has gone downhill rapidly.
Hmmm ... I agree that there are more 'light weight" threads now, but I'm enjoying the forum more because I don't feel that at any moment an interesting thread will be ambushed by Franko or Jedi. Personally, one or two good threads a day is about all I can really read and absorb anyway, so the presence of additional 'fluff' threads doesn't affect me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

metacristi,

However,in spite of the small number of really good threads,since I am much more interested in the philosophy of science,much more covered here,I've decided to stay.
I'm glad to hear it! Your posts often stretch my understanding - which is a good thing! Personally, I find the balance between "hardcore debate" and "mild banter" to be pretty good in R&P - basically, I just don't have the time to invest in too many full-on discussions, so one or two at a time suits me fine.

[LCBOY]

As a new member (I joined just last week) I can say that there is a lot of quality on this forum. For the most part I haved learned a great deal from the exchange of ideas. I have taken a few "petty religious cheap shots" but they don't bother me. I'm not here to talk to those poeple. I'm here to talk to the people that can logically and clearly express their beliefs and viewpoints.

[Clancie]

I just joined recently, too, and appreciate that there are threads where ideas can be discussed without requiring expertise on a particular branch of philosophy (which is what I had assumed this forum would be).

What I don't understand about SotS's complaint is, if the range of discussion seems too shallow or irrelevant to him/her, why not just start a "better" thread?

I can understand someone complaining if they routinely start good discussion topics that die because they are either too specialized, too intellectually demanding, or are hijacked by jokes and digressions.

But why complain about the quality of posts unless you repeatedly try to make it better yourself and get no response?

[c4ts]

For the first time, I'm actually learning from R&P. I never learned anything when most of the threads were about refuting genuine lunacy from Franko, Jedi Knight, and Muscleman. It's like the frikkin' Rennaissance in here.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Darat
There are many posters who have come and gone over the years here, for instance Potatostew who in my opinion added quality to the threads, the board has always been in flux with "good" and "bad" contributors coming and going. (Sadly PS doesn't seem very active these days - perhaps he will return?)I've been wondering what happened to him, now that you mention it.

[Dancing David]

Gee as a newbie i am really hurt ;), Seems to me there have been some great threads going, I wish that more people would write in different ones, but this is a free forum. So why not start a thread and see if it gets highjacked?

Peace
dancing david

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Clancy
I just joined recently, too, and appreciate that there are threads where ideas can be discussed without requiring expertise on a particular branch of philosophy (which is what I had assumed this forum would be).

Philosophy is discussible in its own right, regardless of expertice in a particular area, as knowing about a particular philosophy is not the same as really knowing it (since interpretation can add to meaning without changing it). The only time I start seeing any terminology invovled is when UCE and Ian start their Dualism threads in attempts to refute what they know about particular brands of materialism based on whatever particular branch of dualism they choose to argue for. If you read their posts, you'll notice how it makes them look like experts without actually being ones...

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Star Of The Sea


Oh, absolutely- this is not just about Franko and UndercoverElephant, at all. But at least their presence provided some scenery, you know what I mean.

As for posting in Banter, it is true that the discussion ensuing in your thread there is of a far higher calibre than it would have been here. How absurd that you have to discuss Religion and Philosophy in the Banter forum, while the Religion and Philosophy forum is full of worthless Banter!

regards,

Luke

I have enjoyed posting on here. I am learning a lot that I would not learn otherwise.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by c4ts
For the first time, I'm actually learning from R&P. ...

I've learned dualism is illogical. What have you learned?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by hammegk


I've learned dualism is illogical. What have you learned?

I've learned that materialism has many illogical forms, none of which I had ever seen before until UCE started complaining about them. I discovered that some Catholics abuse Aristotle and abolish rational thought in order to eat chalky wafers. I've also learned that Creationism is not a misunderstanding of Huxley presenting evolutionary theory as an agnostic philosophy, as I once thought, but a deeper misunderstanding of science itself. And, Franko's absence from the forum has allowed me to reconsider what omnipotence might be in.

[Star Of The Sea]

Originally posted by Darat
You called someone out in a previous thread for "insinuating" something about another poster. May I suggest that if you hold these views you have the courage to name who you are referring to? I see you have no issue with naming posters you approve.

If you are referring to for instance Shemp (as I believe you may be) then perhaps you should do him the courtesy of naming him rather then just insinuating it?





I try to subscribe as much as possible to the dictum that if you can't say anything good about someone, don't say anything at all- with mixed success, admittedly. Of course it's different saying something positive. But, yes, Shemp is one of those I refer to- sorry Shemp.



Originally posted by Darat
Can you quantify this or is it just that some of the posters you like don't post any longer? There are many posters who have come and gone over the years here, for instance Potatostew who in my opinion added quality to the threads, the board has always been in flux with "good" and "bad" contributors coming and going. (Sadly PS doesn't seem very active these days - perhaps he will return?)




Let me clarify- I don't 'like' Franko, for example. However, his posts were the catalyst for some excellent discussion, in my opinion. I really enjoyed those threads, and it wasn't because of Franko.

Yes, PotatoStew was one of the good ones, and he won't return in the current climate, that's for sure.



Originally posted by Darat
I am so grateful that a vast majority of threads are no longer being "hijacked" by Franko and to a lesser degree UCE, they made it almost impossible, at times, to discuss anything other then their respective monomania.




Yes, I don't miss that aspect of Franko's presence. Geoff did not quite fit into the same catagory, in my opinion.



Originally posted by Darat
You hit the nail on the head here with "Who knows how many people..... ?" - because no one does - perhaps we've not lost person that you would consider an "excellent addition".




I know that people who used to make positive contributions now usually avoid this forum but post on the other JREF ones- Joshua Korosi, for one. And I know that plenty have just upped and left- PotatoStew for one. And I know others that used to favour this forum now favour, for example, the Politics one, for example Victor Danilchenko. It's not a great leap to think that newcomers would be put off- if I saw the forum for the first time today I would not be interested at all.

Originally posted by Darat


Just so I can understand this - can you give me a date spread of when the R&P section was at a "peak"? I'd like to go and look at the threads that were active then.




Don't be daft, it's totally subjective. Anyway, that 'date spread' has been deleted already.

Originally posted by Loki



Actually, I think they only ever discussed their own pet "big" question. In fact, they took (especially Franko) any and every opportunity to divert any thread onto their own personal tracks.

.

Yep, but it was the debates that ensued that were worthwhile, not just their posts. At least people could get their teeth into it, you know?
Also Franko was a one-trick pony, UCE wasn't.

Originally posted by Loki


Hmmm ... I agree that there are more 'light weight" threads now, but I'm enjoying the forum more because I don't feel that at any moment an interesting thread will be ambushed by Franko or Jedi. Personally, one or two good threads a day is about all I can really read and absorb anyway, so the presence of additional 'fluff' threads doesn't affect me.

.

Yes, you're quite right. But I can't even see one or two right now. NB I never mentioned Jedi, he's no great loss.

But again, think of someone who comes and sees the 'fluff' and is put off.

Originally posted by Clancy


What I don't understand about SotS's complaint is, if the range of discussion seems too shallow or irrelevant to him/her, why not just start a "better" thread?

I can understand someone complaining if they routinely start good discussion topics that die because they are either too specialized, too intellectually demanding, or are hijacked by jokes and digressions.

But why complain about the quality of posts unless you repeatedly try to make it better yourself and get no response?

Yep, that's what martinm said too.. to be frank these days if I want to discuss something I do it on another website. I don't really want to start threads here these days. I will when things change though. All things must pass.



regards,

Luke

[Skeptical Greg]

Bye..

[Star Of The Sea]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Bye..

You going somewhere? :)

I'll still be here, reading and waiting.... and posting if I feel it's worthwhile. I only said I wouldn't start threads here.

regards,

Luke

[stamenflicker]

I personally don't see why anyone with a contrary view would stick around at all. This is pretty much a atheist pep-rally, not a true skeptics forum. There are exceptions of course.

I personally have always enjoyed the company of atheists-- at least the intelligent ones...

Board bordom krept in here after I realized there were only a handful of people capable of extended rational discussion. Does that me a troll now? :) Hope not!

Flick

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Star Of The Sea


Yep, that's what martinm said too.. to be frank these days if I want to discuss something I do it on another website. I don't really want to start threads here these days. I will when things change though. All things must pass.

regards,

Luke

So you don't want to be part of the solution other than to complain? Is that a fair statement?

Seems like a strange attitude. If things do change, I'll know who not to thank ;)

Adam

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
I personally don't see why anyone with a contrary view would stick around at all. This is pretty much a atheist pep-rally, not a true skeptics forum. There are exceptions of course.

Flick

A laugh a day keeps the theists away, thank you !The truth sometimes is very funny.

Peace
dancing david

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
I personally don't see why anyone with a contrary view would stick around at all. This is pretty much a atheist pep-rally, not a true skeptics forum.

Flick

Do you have an example of one? ( A true skeptics forum ..)

I realize you might not want to corrupt it, by revealing the location, so maybe you could quote a few choice examples of a true skeptic at work.. There must be thousands of examples from a TRUE skeptics forum...


Of course it would be wild speculation, to suspect that a ' Woo-Woo ' forum might appear to be a ' Woo-Woo' pep-rally. Or would that be my skepticism at work?

[hal bidlack]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
I personally don't see why anyone with a contrary view would stick around at all. This is pretty much a atheist pep-rally, not a true skeptics forum. There are exceptions of course.

I personally have always enjoyed the company of atheists-- at least the intelligent ones...

Board bordom krept in here after I realized there were only a handful of people capable of extended rational discussion. Does that me a troll now? :) Hope not!

Flick

I'm not an atheist, and Mr Randi put me in charge of the whole thing.:eek: You are certainly welcome here. What I think this board is about is logic, evidence, and reason. Belief in God is pretty tough to define in that way. But it can still be a fun and educational discussion. There will certainly be "signal to noise" ratio problems, but in general, I think if you stick around, you'll find very good discussions (except for the *crazy* claim one nut made about the Red Wings winning the cup again, sigh.)

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Dancing David


A laugh a day keeps the theists away, thank you !The truth sometimes is very funny.

Peace
dancing david

Reminds me of the saying about: ( and I paraphrase )

" I wouldn't laugh at your religion if it didn't consist of funny beliefs."

Sorry I cannot credit the source...

[Darat]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
I personally don't see why anyone with a contrary view would stick around at all. This is pretty much a atheist pep-rally, not a true skeptics forum. There are exceptions of course.

I personally have always enjoyed the company of atheists-- at least the intelligent ones...

Board bordom krept in here after I realized there were only a handful of people capable of extended rational discussion. Does that me a troll now? :) Hope not!

Flick

But whatever "god" you believe in you are an “atheist” the vast majority of the rest of the world! :)

Seriously I just don't think the allegation of "atheist pep-rally" holds together. Just look at the number of current posters active in threads who hold distinctly non-atheists views (see Hal above for one example or Ruby's "What Led me to God" for more non-atheists) There seems to be a healthy mix of atheist, theist, deists and so on here.

I am curious what would make this a true “sceptics” forum in your opinion?

[Darat]

Originally posted by hal bidlack


I'm not an atheist, and Mr Randi put me in charge of the whole thing.:eek: You are certainly welcome here. What I think this board is about is logic, evidence, and reason. Belief in God is pretty tough to define in that way. But it can still be a fun and educational discussion. There will certainly be "signal to noise" ratio problems, but in general, I think if you stick around, you'll find very good discussions (except for the *crazy* claim one nut made about the Red Wings winning the cup again, sigh.)

(Hal I think Randi just covets your wig - he is hoping to lure you into a sense of false security and then wham--bam-thank-you-mam - the wig has gone and he'll blame it on your invisible friend in the sky! ;) )

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

A true skeptic withholds judgement:

"1 : an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object."

So, here's what I propose. Next Thursday, May 1, Mayday, let's all act like true skeptics. That should be pretty darned exciting, don't you think?

No matter what anyone says to me, I'm going to reply "Really?"

~~ Paul

[whitefork]

Really, Paul?

[Denise]

I have to add that it's nice seeing the threads not turn into abuse with the exception of a certain DC. I think it's encouraging to see some discussion of topics without all the hatred. Of course, I usually don't hang out here and the way this forum was going before was one of the reasons.

[stamenflicker]

I am curious what would make this a true “sceptics” forum in your opinion?

Openness and concession, which lead us each to the things we cannot know and to the basic "assumptions" we carry about the world.

Flick

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
A true skeptic withholds judgement:

A "true" skeptic withholds judgement on everything that cannot be proven (a solipsist, basically). A "practical" skeptic tries to get by while assuming as little as necessary about the world around him.

I find that the tone of the serious threads in the forum has taken on a more practical and less abstract tone, which is nice for lighter reading.

As for bashing threads, I just ignore them. Franko wasn't the only one-trick pony in R&P...

[JAR]

That's neat that you live in the lowlands of Scotland. Do you speak Scottish English? If you do, how does one pronounce the Scottish "ch", which comes in words like "heich", "leich", "broch" and "loch"?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Star Of The Sea



I know that people who used to make positive contributions now usually avoid this forum but post on the other JREF ones- Joshua Korosi, for one. And I know that plenty have just upped and left- PotatoStew for one. And I know others that used to favour this forum now favour, for example, the Politics one, for example Victor Danilchenko. It's not a great leap to think that newcomers would be put off- if I saw the forum for the first time today I would not be interested at all.



I don't think Victor has been in here ever since I started to insult him and he put me on ignore. I've read some of his contributions in politics, and I don't think I disagree with anything he has said there. Quite unlike R&P!

Pity he doesn't come back here. I wanted to ask him some questions about strong AI. Still mystifies me that some people actually think computers can become conscious! :eek:

[whitefork]

Ian, I just posted to the Computed Reality thread. Take a look and have at it. Let's see if we can get something going.