In the quest for knowledge, one will necessarily find that religions are nothing but mythologies. I mean, opposing religions cannot be right at the same time. But they are not supposed to "be right", they are just vehicles for old, codified knowledge, i.e. mythology. Monotheisms, however, pretend to be right, they demand the faith that they're right. This, of course, have caused serious problems for society through the centuries. Many philosophers and scholars have pointed this out, e.g. Voltaire, Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell, Freud, Sam Harris, etc.

But whenever one says this on the comments, or asks questions on this line, or gives answers on this line, he/she will almost certainly be censored on this site, just like the last page of Nietzsche's Antichrist was censored. With the difference that the censorship here is always disguised as "moderation".

My point is: is censorship compatible with a true quest for knowledge? If there's censorship on this site, how can it be about philosophy? Actually, censorship is more related to a FEAR of the free exchange of knowledge. So, it seems that phobosophy would be a more proper name, if the censorship is to stay.

  • 6
    It would help a lot if you provided examples to back up your claims. But, I think ultimately what this comes down to is you still not coming to terms with what this site is about. If a question is "wow, religion sure is bad isn't it?" then of course that's going to be closed because that isn't an objection question with an objective answer. The same thing happens when someone does something like that for religion. I can think of multiple examples of answers that were nothing more than "Yes we know that x is real, through the power and the word of God” and those answers were flagged – Not_Here Nov 15 '17 at 3:05
  • 4
    and subsequently deleted because, again, they are not objective and don’t otherwise qualify as good answers on this site. There was even a question recently that was just a Christian posting a “have you accepted Jesus Christ into your heart?” type of question and it was promptly deleted, so your argument that this site tends towards religiosity is lacking evidence, especially since you provided none. I can only think of one regular user who consistently brings God and scripture up in comments and answers regularly, what other evidence do you have? – Not_Here Nov 15 '17 at 3:05
  • 2
    The claim "But whenever one says this on the comments, or asks questions on this line, or gives answers on this line, he/she will almost certainly be censored on this site" is not true. What is probably true, I will grant you, is that if someone posts a large amount of unsourced, personal opinion about how much they disagree with religion, or is otherwise being transgressive about it and talking down to someone else, obviously that is going to be deleted. There's a be nice policy on this site, something I'm sure has come up in your meta discussions before. – Not_Here Nov 15 '17 at 3:07
  • 5
    This is just another example of this site being a place for people to ask questions about philosophy but many people misconstrue it as an open forum where philosophers go and debate their ideas. This isn't "a true quest for knowledge", it's a Q&A site. Without any doubt in my mind, you'd have more success on any of the numerous philosophy subreddits, because those are made for actual discussions. – Not_Here Nov 15 '17 at 3:10
  • Showing examples wouldn't help too much, because you'll use the same subjective reasoning you used the first time. The censorship here has an air of normality, just like a parliamentary coup d'état. My hope was to find other people who felt the same as I do, before finding the status quo maintainers who usually do the censorship. But of course, the latter look so much more abundant here on phobosophy-land... – Rodrigo Nov 15 '17 at 8:39

I can only speak for myself, but I would not delete an answer that argues with actual citations and sources as long as it answers the actual question.

I would also never delete a question that is an actual question on or for philosophical text.

What I would definitely delete are lecturing or unsourced comments and answers and those that pretend to be objective by ridiculing or belittling or simply dismissing any different take on the matter. Or questions that are asked in a way that predetermines possible answers to either agree to the mindset or be dismissed, since those are not real questions, they are rhetorical means to invite for discussion.

Whether all this is religious or not, I do not care. I have my own worldview, which is decidedly agnostic, but when it comes to moderation, all that matters are the rules and purposes of this site.

What should always be held in mind is that this site indeed is not made for anything like "a true quest for knowledge". It is for exchange of knowledge about philosophy, i.e. knowledge about texts and contents already discussed in philosophy, not about doing philosophy and gaining knowledge about the world.

These are two different layers. I am often surprised how hard it is for people to differentiate between presenting views philosophers have taken through history and arguing for or against a certain view personally. This often results in offenses against people that do nothing more or less than what this whole format asks them to: Present relevant positions and texts, no matter what their own view may be or how true or wrong the position is according to contemporary standards.

  • 4
    As a personal comment: Reading texts that share one's own worldview is not studying philosophy. It is narcissistic self-affirmation just as reading news only in your personally adjusted facebook-feed. I have the feeling that both in academic discussions and here the main problems occur when narcissistic personalities do not get the affirmation they are longing for and are confronted with people who challenge their views. But THIS is what philosophy is actually all about imho: Coping with challenges to your personal views and taking them seriously instead of dismissing them. – Philip Klöcking Mod Nov 15 '17 at 13:55
  • Nietzsche wouldn't agree with you. On his view, most philosophers are not exactly pursuing knowledge, but saving the status quo from the changes real knowledge would impose on it. And this is what I see on this site. To have illuminist ideals almost destroyed by so called "postmodern philosophers" is just an example. The fact that most here prefer to ignore that, even when given lots of citations saying exactly this, is another example. I still think that phobosophy would be more honest. But of course, honesty is not the objective of those who want to preserve the status quo. – Rodrigo Nov 15 '17 at 15:28
  • 3
    @Rodrigo: You did read and understand the last three paragraphs of the answer? It is in the very nature of StackExchange that any StackExchange site will be on the "status quo", as this is exactly what it is about: asking for and answering about the status quo in a certain subject matter, i.e. how things are. The subject matter happens to be philosophy on this site, but this does not change the objective of StackExchange, which it is part of. If you want avantgarde philosophy, go to conferences, publish papers, etc. But don't accuse people doing exactly that of not knowing philosophy – Philip Klöcking Mod Nov 15 '17 at 15:35
  • To recognize monotheism as false and dangerous is not "avantgarde" at all! Now, if you see "status quo" as "how things are" ("como são" or "como estão"? I'm assuming the 1st) instead of a present state of things that usually violate human nature, then you're being honest about the conservative and reactionary position that I'm denouncing here. "How things are" means Reality (e.g. there are many gods throughout humankind, anyone can see that). "Status quo" means how society is dominated by a few (e.g. "there is only one God, and if you don't follow Him [i.e. me], you'll burn in hell forever"). – Rodrigo Nov 15 '17 at 15:53
  • 2
    Recognizing that monotheism does give some consolation for a lot of people and has a non-deniable cultural reality that I can totally accept as long as people don't become oppressive or missionary is not "avant-garde" as well. You still fail to show a single case where any moderator acted because of religious conservatism instead of people (including you) violating the terms of use of this network. So you may want to start to back your rant up with something substantial, as otherwise your offensive claims do in fact violate the be nice policy. – Philip Klöcking Mod Nov 15 '17 at 16:09
  • Consolation??!!! First they destroy the native culture of everywhere they invaded, later they give consolation! They fight against birth planning, against condoms, against abortion, against homosexuality -- all leading to overpopulation and destruction of resources (because they also don't know how to care for Nature), to later gain yet more power (they thrive in a world full of misery) and give consolation! Oh, how splendid they are! And you, of course, defend that! "Be nice" should be a obligation first for those religions. But they're not nice, and you defending this destruction is neither. – Rodrigo Nov 15 '17 at 17:08
  • And that's because you're "agnostic"!! I think you should travel to places where Christianity created the biggest misery (Europe stole half the world's gold, you don't know what misery is). Ever been to Haiti? Or maybe you should try Africa, which I guess is closer. – Rodrigo Nov 15 '17 at 17:13
  • 2
    The points raised remain. You are obviously conflating different layers of Colonialism and hegemony, religion and church. I have my own mainly negative views regarding the historical and contemporary doings of various churches, but this has nothing to do with how people should be treated or the raison d'être of religion, which is in my view consolation. You claim that the moderators purport the mischief of monotheistic churches, human rights violations, and whatnot? Show me, and I will be the first to fight at your side. Otherwise, stop this nonsensical rant. – Philip Klöcking Mod Nov 15 '17 at 17:24
  • You don't even know what are the violations monotheism cause. Go to Haiti or Africa, then come back to argue. Of course you call "nonsensical" what you don't understand. That's so typical! – Rodrigo Nov 15 '17 at 17:31
  • 3
    You should stop making assumptions about people not knowing what misery is. You are lecturing with an arrogance that I find highly offending while obviously having no idea. Maybe you could see that we agree more than you think, but you do not seem to be able to escape your bubble of passionate disgust and broad-brush accusations. – Philip Klöcking Mod Nov 15 '17 at 18:11
  • So stop pretending monotheism is a good thing, that would be a start. You could only know nothing about the world to think that monotheism is a good thing. "They give consolation", that's ridiculous! Mythologies serve to give wisdom. Monotheism to give power to those who wrote the Bible. Nothing more. – Rodrigo Nov 15 '17 at 21:25
  • 1
    @Rodrigo: I made it abundantly clear that I do NOT think that monotheistic churches are a good thing. If you cannot distinguish between a religion and the institutional and political manifestations that claim legitimisation (i.e. capitalise) from religion, that is not my problem. Consolation is a feeling, and people feel it due to their faith sometimes. That is a matter of fact. And power and oppression have been built upon polytheistic religion just as well in history. – Philip Klöcking Mod Nov 15 '17 at 21:51
  • People feel consolation because there's nothing else to feel after all: their culture was already destroyed. And yes, I see no difference between a religion like Christianity and the churches that capitalise from it. They're both one and the same machine created to turn free individuals into mind slaves. Now you mention a supposed difference, that only exists in your mind, and gives you the satisfaction of profiting from the status quo, and the certainty that the mind slaves will never rebel against it. – Rodrigo Nov 16 '17 at 3:13
  • Well, different cultures have oppressed peoples' bodies in different ways. But I've never seen anything like the mind oppression that monotheism is able to do. So many philosophers wrote about it (Bertrand Russell, Voltaire, Nietzsche...), but it seems you chose not to read those. Or to read them with eyes that select only the "parts you like", and forget all the rest. – Rodrigo Nov 16 '17 at 3:16

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