-
In total there are 43 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 43 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am
The Pascal Clause
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
-
-
- The Pope of Literature
- Posts: 2553
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am
- 19
- Location: decentralized
The Pascal Clause
I'm going to make a suggestion, and I hope that it ends up being for the good of the forum.What I'm suggesting is a clause, one that may be invoked at the beginning of any thread. The meaning of this clause is something along the lines of "If we first assume the existence of God, gods or a god...."I'm calling this the Pascal Clause. Invoke it however you would like. Spell out the meaning or simply put "Pascal Clause" in parentheses at the beginning of your post.The purpose of this clause is to allow conversation about the intricacies of religion by first bypassing the seemingly never-ending obstacle provided by the debate over theism v. atheism. If you have no interest in debating religion as something other than a symptom, kindly bypass any thread that begins with the Pascal Clause. Out of courtesy, please do not attempt to introduce an atheistic tangent into a thread that begins with the Pascal Clause. And if you decide to participate in a thread that begins with the Clause, please proceed from the central assumption of the Clause.The Clause, naturally, should not be abused, nor should it be used to exclude all atheistic debate from the board.Note that the Clause is rather ambiguous about the nature and character of deity. This is intentional, and is devised to allow discussion about a broad range of religious topics.
- Chris OConnor
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 17019
- Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
- 21
- Location: Florida
- Has thanked: 3511 times
- Been thanked: 1309 times
- Gender:
- Contact:
- Dissident Heart
-
- I dumpster dive for books!
- Posts: 1790
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:01 am
- 20
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 18 times
The Santa Clause
I like this idea. I mean, it should at least remedy to the consistent resort to the Santa Clause that finds its way into every discussion regarding God, gods, and Religion...you know, the one that says, "Well, since you can't prove to me that Santa Claus exists, your understanding of the issue is bogus."
- ZachSylvanus
-
Agrees that Reading is Fundamental
- Posts: 286
- Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 4:54 pm
- 21
- Location: Fort Collins, CO
- Been thanked: 3 times
- Contact:
Re: The Santa Clause
And at least it would allow us all to discuss things rather than just bash them.As much as I don't think there's any sort of deity, I could be wrong...and a discussion on "what if" is always more entertaining than just blowing the issue off.
- Interbane
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 7203
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
- 19
- Location: Da U.P.
- Has thanked: 1105 times
- Been thanked: 2166 times
Re: The Santa Clause
Interesting, I like that. In certain debates, could the clause be the opposite - atheistic? There are times when the existance of God is used by theists as an explanation that bypasses further investigation into the matter of the debate, whatever the topic may be. Just curious is all...
Re: The Santa Clause
I'm new here, but I like it too for those that wish to discuss the intracacies of religion or just the nature of god or Jehovah in particular without falling into what we might term at work a "rathole" over the existence of god. If it's made clear up front, especially with a canned statment or phrase as suggested, those not interested can just step out.We are able to do this on anther board I frequent by using an entirely different forum, but I actually like this idea better.ST I would defend the liberty of concenting adult creationists to practice whatever intellectual perversions they like in the privacy of their own homes; but it is also necessary to protect the young and innocent. -Arthur C. Clarke
-
-
- The Pope of Literature
- Posts: 2553
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am
- 19
- Location: decentralized
Re: The Santa Clause
Interbane: In certain debates, could the clause be the opposite - atheistic? There are times when the existance of God is used by theists as an explanation that bypasses further investigation into the matter of the debate, whatever the topic may be.I don't see why not, should the need arise. What shall we call the opposite clause? Lucretius was a Roman Stoic who denied the existence of deities in his "De rerum natura". Perhaps the Lucretian Clause?
Re: The Pascal Clause
I am ready (says the invisible cat in alice in wonderland, with only the grin showing).Monty VonnMeme Wars!
- Chris OConnor
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 17019
- Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
- 21
- Location: Florida
- Has thanked: 3511 times
- Been thanked: 1309 times
- Gender:
- Contact:
Re: The Pascal Clause
While I definitely appreciate the effort to enhance the community, this particular change or addition doesn't seem to be in the best interest of BookTalk. As "the freethinker's book discussion community," I think we ought to always maintain critical minds and open and honest discussions. In critical thinking terms the "Pascal Clause" is both a faulty premise and indirectly a false analogy. Why would we ever want to accept weak thinking on BookTalk? Aren't we about education and the critical examination of nonfiction books? How is taking a leap of faith and assuming, even if just for the sake of argument, that a magical super being exists, in the best interest of anyone with intellectual integrity? Why not include an Easter Bunny clause, or a Santa Claus, as Dissident suggests?Theists are welcome to make posts about their faith on our forums. Dissident does it every day. But excluding these posts from critical examination isn't something I'm comfortable doing, and I hope most members agree. Sorry for having to use Dissident as an example, but it needs to be done. Almost all of his posts are preaching via quotes pulled off other sites. So Dissident types, "Pascal Clause," before each of his posts and atheists are expected to skip right over them? Not very likely or wise in my opinion. All irrational statements, arguments and positions should be open for discussion in this community. None should receive this form of immunity. If you want your arguments to be exempt from scrutiny then you don't belong on a freethinker site.On the other hand, we are free to have discussions about religions and faith - from an academic position. Studying comparative religion is important for anyone that desires a complete education. But the moment a member approaches religion from the mentality of an adherent we'll be having a debate. I think this is fair and representative of the very essence of BookTalk. There are literally hundreds of thousands of web sites for theists to spread their beliefs. BookTalk is about thinking clearly and effectively, and using a faulty premise is counterproductive. Chris Edited by: Chris OConnor at: 1/3/05 5:47 pm
Re: The Pascal Clause
I am glad that Chris made such a post in response to the suggestion. I am in agreement with his sentiments and he iterated my thoughts better than I probably could have. All posts in this community should be subject to critical examination. You may ask that an audience accepts a premise you put forth, but dictating that they either accept that premise or do not contribute to the discussion seems exclusionary. We are a freethinking community!