29 Dec 04
there was a thread about this ages ago ... i would prefer to simply bring that back but i could not find it.
so the question is:
did you ever change your opinion as a result of a debate?
please give an example.
please understand this as different from becoming newly informed about simple factual answers to simple factual questions.
29 Dec 04
Originally posted by flexmoreI don't understand the question. What's an opinion in this context?
there was a thread about this ages ago ... i would prefer to simply bring that back but i could not find it.
so the question is:
[b]did you ever change your opinion as a result of a debate?
please give an example.
please understand this as different from becoming newly informed about simple factual answers to simple factual questions.[/b]
29 Dec 04
Originally posted by flexmoreGood question, reading some posts here have made me appreciate some points of views more, but I still think the same way.
there was a thread about this ages ago ... i would prefer to simply bring that back but i could not find it.
so the question is:
[b]did you ever change your opinion as a result of a debate?
please give an example.
please understand this as different from becoming newly informed about simple factual answers to simple factual questions.[/b]
29 Dec 04
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungan opinion is your choice of answer .... when a question has several available answers, none of which can be proved true.
I don't understand the question. What's an opinion in this context?
we all normally believe one particular answer to be "truer", but disagree about which one.
such vague questions as:
"which side of politics is better, left or right?"
"are humans better than dinosaurs?"
"should bush feel bad about going to iraq?"
are examples
29 Dec 04
i have seen people move opinions, especially:
some people swing from left to right wing politics as they grow older.
they do this as a part of their aging, and the swing suits their own self interest of course ( i guess i am still left wing, probably for life!).
i have never seen someone swing from a debate.
29 Dec 04
It is possible that reading a debate transcript in my adult years has changed my mind on some minor issues. Debates about the really big issues (evolution vs. creationism, for example) did in fact move me to the opposite side back in my teen years. By about 17, I had crystallized my opinions on the big stuff, and have not shifted a bit--though I like to think that a debate could potentially shift me even on those issues.
29 Dec 04
Originally posted by Paul DiracI would not consider evolution vs. creationism as a big issue; but I can attest that debating the creationist side for much of my 20s moved me back towards science and evidence, away from from the foundational logic of Francis Schaeffer and Henry Morris, back toward inductive reasoning.
Debates about the really big issues (evolution vs. creationism, for example) did in fact move me to the opposite side back in my teen years.
I documented this trail in my "Confessions of an Ex-Creationist," written for a graduate course in Anthropological Theory taught by an evolutionist.
29 Dec 04
3 edits
Originally posted by WulebgrIf you had been raised the way R.B. Hill and I were raised, it would surely be a big issue. I can remember the minister waving his Bible above his head and saying, "If we are apes, then this whole book is a pack of lies, and you may as well toss it in the trash as you leave the service today."
I would not consider evolution vs. creationism as a big issue... my "Confessions of an Ex-Creationist," ...
I would be interested in reading any excerpts from your report that you would care to quote here.
02 Jan 05
Originally posted by Paul DiracHope you don't mind my butting in here guys, but my feeling in regards to the great "ape" debate is this: i believe both happened! Like this: A god or higher power, creates the universe, but then allows it to evolve on its own-doesn't the bible suggest this anyway? I'm afraid the debate will never "evolve" itself because both sides refuse to recognize the other, but if you look at the universe, isn't there 2 of everything???? light-dark, positive-negative, cold-hot, and througout the bible things happen in twos the biggest example would be: God-Satan, Adam-Eve, etc. If "god" is responsible for our whole existence then wouldn't he have continued to "create" beyond the 7th day???? Just a "2nd" opinion...
If you had been raised the way R.B. Hill and I were raised, it would surely be a big issue. I can remember the minister waving his Bible above his head and saying, "If we are apes, then this whole book is a pack of lies, and you may as well toss it in the trash as you leave the service today."
I would be interested in reading any excerpts from your report that you would care to quote here.
02 Jan 05
1 edit
Originally posted by kingspawn43I don't think the people in my childhood church saw it that way. You are espousing what is called 'Deism.' God makes the universe, then stands back and passively observes. The ministers of my church stressed how intimately involved God and Satan are with everything that happens at each moment in our lives.
... A god or higher power, creates the universe, but then allows it to evolve on its own-doesn't the bible suggest this anyway? ...
02 Jan 05
Originally posted by kingspawn43I don't think so, although Deists like Thomas Jefferson thought so. But, the famed Jefferson Bible was the consequence of this belief; he needed to alter the text to exclude hundreds of accounts of miracles. Perhaps you could expand your assertion a bit, though: how does the bible support evolution?
A god or higher power, creates the universe, but then allows it to evolve on its own-doesn't the bible suggest this anyway?
But, if you carefully read the first few verses in Genesis carefully enough, you will find considerable gaps of time prior to the creation of day and night by even the most literal readings. Consequently most theologians, especially those with even a minimal knowledge of the Hebrew language, recognize the "six days of creation" as figurative.
You will also realize, if you carefully study verses 1-2, that the modern fundamentalist notion that human life begins at conception must be established through suppression of important biblical evidence--that is, life and breath are one and the same as the bible defines life.
The "scientific" and political opinions most treasured by today's fundamentalists, evangelicals, and even conservative Catholics requires them to terribly distort the teachings in the first few paragraphs of their most holy book.
03 Jan 05
Originally posted by WulebgrDo you have a website for the 'Jefferson Bible?'
I don't think so, although Deists like Thomas Jefferson thought so. But, the famed Jefferson Bible was the consequence of this belief; he needed to alter the text to exclude hundreds of accounts of miracles. Perhaps you could expand your assertion a bit, though: how does the bible support evolution?
Nemesio