3

It seems that many people are trying to close my question (What is good and what is evil?) that makes explicit mention of God.

For example, one of the commenters says:

I think this question is rather biased toward belief or theistic point of views. Your question already assumes a belief in some kind of God (or, perhaps, many gods).

However, because I see philosophy as the reasoning of our existence, I don't think that we should completely eliminate any discussion of a higher or greater being.

What's the community consensus about this? Should these types of questions be allowed?

  • 2
    When you seek to answer your own question with argumentative premises within the question itself, include those premises as an answer and compete with fellow answerers. – mfg Jun 8 '11 at 14:50
8

I propose that you refer to particular questions instead of claiming that it was the presence of the word "God" that lead to the close-votes.

I voted to close a question that answered its own question with an essay why there is a god. A similar essay by an atheist would be equally off-topic.

  • I was giving background on the question and what seems to make sense to myself. Am I to give generalized questions that apply to everybody, or am I to attempt to get an answer to my question? If I am to use stackexchange to find answers for MY questions, then it would make sense that I would give some supporting viewpoints for my understanding. would it not? – Ecommerce Consultant Jun 7 '11 at 21:59
  • 1
    You gave an answer to your own question, so don't pretend that you were looking for an answer. – Phira Jun 7 '11 at 22:07
  • I stated that "the only logical answer to me", which is not to say that I accepted that as the answer, but it seems to be the most likely. Either way, whether I formed my long question properly or not, should not be the foundations of whether a question is fit for this forum. – Ecommerce Consultant Jun 7 '11 at 22:11
  • 2
    "The only logical answer to me" does not mean "the most likely". And you are very wrong about the non-importance of formulation. – Phira Jun 7 '11 at 22:15
  • @thei you cannot judge somebodies question based upon their ability to ask the question. If you understand the question and its valid, then its still a valid question, regardless. – Ecommerce Consultant Jun 7 '11 at 23:38
  • 4
    @Jon simply put, when a question reads like it should be ended with "Amirite?" it should be closed. If you have an answer to your own question, as in "the only logical answer to me", include it as an answer. Reformulate the question to divorce your assumptions because they will force the answers into a narrow, over-localized path. Frequently, people embed their assumptions into a question to trap answerers and force answers to their liking. – mfg Jun 8 '11 at 14:44
6

Read the FAQ. Questions that provide their own answer(s) are not welcome. They lead to confrontation and argument (the bad kind), exactly what is happening now. I am entirely open to questions involving God and religion in a philosophical context, and yet I voted to close your question. Your claim that we are closing because God was mentioned is a straw man argument. We quite clearly did not take that position.

-1

When you add a God to philosophy discussion, its akin to multiplying by Infinity in mathematics. The whole discussion becomes pointless, if you have omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent actor, who is not indifferent to earthlings.

  • 1
    I have to disagree. You can still talk about the idea of God and what such a being would entail in an academic manner. Philosophy of religion is certainly valid here, keeping in mind that philosophy of religion is not the same as religious philosophy. – stoicfury Oct 26 '11 at 4:08
  • Well, when its philosophy of religion, or history of religion - then yes, of course. But those disciplines do not view at god(s) as the physical phenomenon, but rather as social one. – c69 Oct 26 '11 at 17:03
-3

This isn't atheism.stackexchange, and considering the majority of Western philosophy, among others, has attended to the possibility of an omniscient entity as reference for conceptualization, the answer should unequivocally be no, we should not completely eliminate discussion of "a greater being"?

If the best one can do is censor such discussion, then one may be in the wrong place.

  • 7
    It's not being censored. – Matthew Read Jun 7 '11 at 23:43

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .