Regarding the “flag this user’s posts” feature, I plan to add a color selector so that you can flag several people with different colors to track the back-and-forth within a tread.
I was thinking, though, that people might like to flag people on a semi-permanent basis, rather than just on a single-page basis. Like make it so a few people’s posts are always flagged red, a few always green, so you can spot some friends/enemies’ posts wherever they may be.
The problem is, I can’t think of a clear way to differentiate between “flag only on this page” and “flag always”, so the easiest would be to just make the flag button always be “always.”
Would you want this, or would you prefer for it to be on a page-by-page basis?
(I’ll be adding an “unflag” button as well, naturally)
Thanks for explaining that. The implication of familiarity was a bit… well, disturbing.
Regarding the atheist atom symbol, I can see where your concern about the unnecessary (and frankly stupid) rivalry between faith and science comes in. But the reasoning behind the officlal symbol is simply that atheists are, by definition, materialists. And the atom symbol is a pretty good representation of a materialist philosophy.
Maybe for scientists like physicists, you could use a beaker. For pseudo-sciences, like biology, you could use a mortar board. For lawyers, the scales of justice. For musicians, an eighth note. Etc. Hope those ideas help.
Oh, and for philosophers: a raving lunatic. “All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher.” Ambrose Bierce
I’m sorry, but you have me at a disadvantage. Was it the beaker? The mortar board?
Wait, wait, wait… no. It’s the “pseudo-science”, isn’t it. Please let me plead my case. (I reckon that’s what wierdaaron chose to “glide right past” as well.)
First, let me state that I have no disrespect for biology or biologists. Neither do I disrespect economists, nor psychologists. I simply use rigorous Popperian criteria for distinguishing between science and pseudo-science — like economics and psychology.
(If you’re willing to read a brief, excellent exerpt from an essay by Popper, please see Science as Falsification. You will be edified, I promise.)
Meanwhile, biology specifically, as “the study of life”, is unable even to define that which it studies, and especially moreso when it concerns life that might be extra-terrestrial. See SETI’s The Meaning of Life. Even defining life on earth itself is problematic, and you can get almost as many definitions as you can sources.
That is not to say that each and every aspect of biology is nonpredictive or undefined, but by its very nature, natural selection and the process of evolution actually preclude the ability to make certain predictions. (One cannot, for example, predict how the evolution of homo sapiens will proceed.) That is not a ding against evolutionary theory (which I embrace). It’s just a fact. Apologies for any unintended offense.
Since atheists typically describe themselves as lacking belief in God (as opposed to having a belief in NoGod), perhaps something that is empty. Just a square black icon. No color. No belief. And voila!
First, well done with all the work you did! I think it’s great. I do think you need a better Atheist symbol as well. The Zeus thing is okay, but wouldn’t it be better to have maybe just blue sky and clouds, trying to show the absence of belief in anything, as opposed the the belief being opposed to god(s)?
Also, “lawyer” is another good category. Perhaps the scales of justice. Some suggestions for the doctors: a syringe, a prescription bottle, the caduceus (already mentioned).
On the other hand, maybe professions is too much info. If you have too many of those icons it could start to turn into a mess.
Yeah. See, that’s part of the greatness of the Dope. People like me learn things about people like you. (If you’re a theist, forgive me, but please allow the point notwithstanding.) I learned a lot about atheism that even reading atheist philosophers never revealed.
ETA: The problem is that there has been a lack of great modern essentialists. Alvin Plantinga. Maybe Hartshorne. Godel, if we stretch it. And that’s all of them, I think.
Even though I’m vehemently anti-existentialist, I feel like existentialism is fading away, and the world is not the better for it. The problem never was that there was a deficit of extremely high quality existentialist philosophers (like Daniel Dennett), for example. But unfortunately, there are also some materialist nutjobs out there, (like Richard Dawkins), about whom I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that he’s the inspiration for Dennett’s famous, “There is nothing I like less than bad arguments for views that I hold dear.” I do sometimes wish we (the Dope) could return to our Golden Age.