Originally posted by rwingettI guess since my name has been invoked, I ought to say something. 😉 In the first place, I cannot agree that the words "Christian" and "idiot" are synonyms. I have too many counterexamples. I have a lot of friends who are Christians. (I also have friends who are Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Baha'i, etc.) Some of them are very sharp people. I have to say that I sometimes have this queasy feeling that "they must have a blind spot". I know that they must have the same feeling about me. I may not be able to understand how they can be so blind, but seriously, some of them are brilliant.
Unfortunately, I don't have the patience of Prn. You reach a point where you realize reasoned arguments are a waste of time with [...]. It is just as effective, and takes much less time, to just insult them.
As far as patience is concerned, I've been working on that for a long time.🙂 RoyalChicken said it reasonably well -- there are multiple strategies you can adopt. In my case, I've decided to go for the "voice of reason" strategy. Some of the people I argue with, I have hope for. Some of them I don't, but my arguments are at least as effective for the observers. I occasionally get messages from people who have not taken active part in the debate telling me that I have helped them understand what is going on. These are the people that I primarily write for, the ones who have not become so invested in one narrow point of view that they cannot see anything else. I don't expect all of them to agree with me. I'd be shocked if I ever met anyone who agreed with me on everything. I'd probably have a stroke on the spot and fall over dead. But I have long been committed to learning and learning is for people who want to make up their own minds.
Insulting someone does take less time than putting together a reasoned argument. It is often equally effective, i.e., not at all effective, in terms of influencing that person. OTOH, the reasoned argument may turn out to be a lot more effective with the onlookers.
Best Regards,
Paul
1 edit
Originally posted by prnNormally I agree with what you're saying. But the election has put me in a foul mood. The christians have won another four years at the helm. It should be but a small inconvenience on their part to put up with my insults for a few days.
I guess since my name has been invoked, I ought to say something. 😉 In the first place, I cannot agree that the words "Christian" and "idiot" are synonyms. I have too many counterexamples. I have a lot of friends who are Christians. (I als ...[text shortened]... a lot more effective with the onlookers.
Best Regards,
Paul
Originally posted by rwingettOh, come on Rob. These aren't Christians running the country. If actual Christians were running the country, the government would take the money they spend on cluster bombs and missile defense and spend it fighting poverty. The people who are running the country manipulate Christians by exploiting the ugly inconsistencies of their faith (e.g., the misogyny and homophobia).
Normally I agree with what you're saying. But the election has put me in a foul mood. The christians have won another four years at the helm. It should be but a small inconvenience on their part to put up with my insults for a few days.
Originally posted by bbarrIs that supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek rejoinder? I guess we see there the difference between theoretical christianity and applied christianity. It might sound good in theory, but it stinks in practice.
Oh, come on Rob. These aren't Christians running the country. If actual Christians were running the country, the government would take the money they spend on cluster bombs and missile defense and spend it fighting poverty. The people who are running the country manipulate Christians by exploiting the ugly inconsistencies of their faith (e.g., the misogyny and homophobia).
Originally posted by royalchickenI can agree to most of your post, especially the first part about favouring dialogue, and I too are so fond of debate that I more or less consider it a leisure activity.
There are two approaches I use when talking to anyone with very strong beliefs that they are unwilling to criticize, because while reasoned argument is often ineffective, insulting them is unlikely to help the next person with views similar to yours who tries to talk to them about the same thing, and I think as a person who is not merely an atheist but ...[text shortened]... several examples of intelligent and well-spoken Christians on RHP; huntingbear springs to mind.
However I have to object to the following statement:
“….because it is much more important to be able to argue than it is to have a concrete set of beliefs,……”
It may be true if you want to become a successful politician, since you then have to change your views on a regular basis according to the flavour of the year among your voters.
But we should not forget that the point of debate is to advocate and communicate ideas and beliefs that we hold to be true and of importance not only to our self but to our surroundings as well.
I have plenty of times found my self defending a view that I did not completely hold, only to show my self or perhaps others that I could, but thinking about it it’s really being untrue to both your self and your debating opponent . It seems that there are plenty of room for fierce debate with the vide varieties of opposing views held in the world today, so no need to fear running out of challenging debates.
Oh by the way I dare you to oppose me on this ….😀
Originally posted by ScheelI disagree. It is not good to be certain of one's beliefs. Instead, we should remember that argument is a tool for questioning and acknowledge what we are taking for granted and what we are concluding. This is most evident in maths, which can be viewed as the science of argument, but it extends to other types of argument as well.
I can agree to most of your post, especially the first part about favouring dialogue, and I too are so fond of debate that I more or less consider it a leisure activity.
However I have to object to the following statement:
“….because it is much more important to be able to argue than it is to have a concrete set of beliefs,……”
It may be true if you want ...[text shortened]... fear running out of challenging debates.
Oh by the way I dare you to oppose me on this ….😀
I don't find it a good idea to attach yourself emotionally to your beliefs so that you feel a need to defend them specifically. As long as debating is a 'leisure activity', it is often interesting to try to think of arguments in favor of ideas you oppose, because in examining the premises you have to work with you invariably learn something about others' beliefs. I don't really see the point of constantly defending your own beliefs because no matter how well you argue, you are unlikely to convince most people.
Originally posted by royalchickenLet me start by clarifying:
I disagree. It is not good to be certain of one's beliefs. Instead, we should remember that argument is a tool for questioning and acknowledge what we are taking for granted and what we are concluding. This is most evident in maths, which can be viewed as the science of argument, but it extends to other types of argument as well.
I don't find ...[text shortened]... your own beliefs because no matter how well you argue, you are unlikely to convince most people.
It is important, and a sign of great intellectual capacity, to have an open mind. The ability to understand (though not agree with) the basis from where others views are derived, creates friends instead of foes.
But - in of our sheer enjoyment of a good debate we should not loose track of the goal, and that will always be the beliefs we are debating.
Debate without truthfulness to our beliefs is just an other excuse to hear our self talking.
The above is not contradictory to the fact that if you are not willing to learn and adapt if necessary, then the whole debate is really pointless.
The remark about not loosing track of the goal is also true for maths. Arguments may be what takes the most pages, but math is really the science of truth !
The theorems are the core, the proofs may hold a poetry of their own, for the eyes that can see, but they are only worth considering because they reveal the universal truth.
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettWhile I realize that Christian baiting is an well-established tradition and certainly it is fun to push buttons until you get a rise out of one.I think perhaps, the closed mindedness with which many Christians are accused is equally applicable to the accusors. It is easy and convient to name a particular group for the difficulties which arise in the world...In fact, it is the best of all possible ways to relieve oneself of personal responsibility in the face of frightening circumstances and events. It is also an excellent way of avoiding looking at one's own behavior.
Normally I agree with what you're saying. But the election has put me in a foul mood. The christians have won another four years at the helm. It should be but a small inconvenience on their part to put up with my insults for a few days.
The insults go on and on and on...there is always a reason to bait a Christian, always an excuse, always an explaination, justification or rationalization. What is communicated is contempt. Insults are not a small inconvience. They affect the willingness of people to enter in to conversation about what is important, what needs to be addressed in the world.
I would like to suggest that possibly, just possibly that there are Christians of value and worth who are seeking healing and reconcilliation in the world. Christians who are committed to peace and justice. I would also ask you to consider this: many, many Christians are dismayed and upset to see a Bush victory. Finally, the scapegoating of Christians alienates a potential ally and/or friend.
Originally posted by ScheelYour comment on maths is certainly true (when I first got to uni, in the very first lecture mathematics was defined as ''the pursuit of truth via proof''😉, but it's interesting how little interest most ''deep'' theorems hold as statements, compared to the method of argument used to prove them. For example, one result I find quite fascinating is the Prime Number Theorem, which says that the number of primes not greater than a real number is asymptotic to that number divided by its logarithm. The result itself is not especially interesting or important, or qualitatively unexpected. However, I've read two proofs of it which are completely different in character; Hadamard's is effective, certainly, but it involves complicated tools and I understood it only with serious struggling. Selberg's, by contrast, while not dead simple, is motivated and inevitable, and most of the best maths is similar; it is not fantastic because the truths are themselves of fundamental interest, but because they can be put together coherently and even more because the arguments used to establish them, while often very complex, are inevitable and often relate to other ideas which are nonobvious.
Let me start by clarifying:
It is important, and a sign of great intellectual capacity, to have an open mind. The ability to understand (though not agree with) the basis from where others views are derived, creates friends instead of foes.
But - in of our sheer enjoyment of a good debate we should not loose track of the goal, and that will always be the be ...[text shortened]... eyes that can see, but they are only worth considering because they reveal the universal truth.
The only flaw in your description is that in maths (uniquely) it is taken as read that we agree on our premises. There really isn't any debate, because the only tool we (formally--some maths is in practice done in quite an inuitive way, with logic coming only afterward) have is deductive logic.
In debating, the real problem is not making deductive arguments, which in most debates are quite simple, but rather in examining premises to decide what is reasonable in terms of evidence, explanatory power, economy, etc. I don't think we essentially disagree though, because your posts suggest you have come to many of your beliefs through essentially the same process that brings about a good debate. I was talking more about the fact that attempting to defend irrationial beliefs can somehow explain the source of their irrationality, and beliefs that may look good on the surface may sometimes be debunked by spending time trying and failing to defend them.
Originally posted by AynatI agree with you whole heartedly, you are a voice of reason. I would also suggest that there maybe other reasons that the Democrats lost in rural areas, which are viewed as "hot beds" of the "fanatical right". Maybe the Democratic party should do some "soul searching" ? After all there is more to the United States than New England, the West Coast, a few states around the Great Lakes and the major metropolitan areas! Isn't there?
While I realize that Christian baiting is an well-established tradition and certainly it is fun to push buttons until you get a rise out of one.I think perhaps, the closed mindedness with which many Christians are accused is equally applicable to the accusors. It is easy and convient to name a particular group for the difficulties which arise in the world...In ...[text shortened]... h victory. Finally, the scapegoating of Christians alienates a potential ally and/or friend.
Regards,
Charlie
Originally posted by chaswrayWe tolerate your presence only so you can provide our great liberal cities with food. Other than that, you rural types serve no useful purpose. 😉
I agree with you whole heartedly, you are a voice of reason. I would also suggest that there maybe other reasons that the Democrats lost in rural areas, which are viewed as "hot beds" of the "fanatical right". Maybe the Democratic party should do some "soul searching" ? After all there is more to the United States than New England, the West Coast, a ...[text shortened]... states around the Great Lakes and the major metropolitan areas! Isn't there?
Regards,
Charlie
Originally posted by rwingettPretty much the way we feel too. We tolerate the liberal cities as they give us something to laugh at...entertainment if you will😛
We tolerate your presence only so you can provide our great liberal cities with food. Other than that, you rural types serve no useful purpose. 😉