A no-arguing thread: your views in 75 words or less

[Martin]

 

my advisor's advisor's advisor's advisor was the advisor of Paul Dirac.

 

Congratulations on having such revered parentage!

 

or more precisely "uncle-age"

since thesis-wise unless I am mistaken

Dirac was the uncle

of your grandfather

[-Demosthenes-]

I don't think anyone can believe in science anymore than we can prove that God exists. Religion and science are two separate domains of thinking that can be completely compatable. However, Anybody who blames either of religion or science of being the cause of some huge social problem probably isn't seeing the big picture and probably should try not being so intolerant.

 

64 words.. bo yah.

 

If I had 64 more words to use, these would be it.

[Mokele]

My advisor's advisor was also the Brian Greene's advisor's advisor (so we are academic cousins).

 

Also my advisor's advisor's advisor's advisor was the advisor of Paul Dirac.

 

"I am your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate!" - Dark Helmet!

[DaveC426913]

This would be a more interesting and universally viral question if we could better define the question. Is it just views about religion? (If you ask this mostly what you'll get is cynicism) Is the question more about the universe's purpose? God? All creation?

[DaveC426913]

My view in exactly 75 words:

 

Man made God in his own image. The miracle that is the evolved human mind is predisposed toward anthropomorphizing aspects it can't comprehend, including the "purpose" of things. This is the root all of religion and, ideally, is a good thing, as it helps us grow as humans, In practice, it has been corrupted towards selfish purposes. I believe that "wanting" God to exist (which I'd love) does not make it so (which it isn't).

[blackhole123]

I don't think anyone can believe in science anymore than we can prove that God exists. Religion and science are two separate domains of thinking that can be completely compatable. However, Anybody who blames either of religion or science of being the cause of some huge social problem probably isn't seeing the big picture and probably should try not being so intolerant.

 

64 words.. bo yah.

 

ok i did word that wrong. i should have said i believe that science, not religion, is right.

[ecoli]

ok i did word that wrong. i should have said i believe that science, not religion, is right.

 

AGGGG... Temptation to argue is overwhelming me...

 

/me explodes

[blackhole123]

Ok What the hell should i say??????

 

There is no such thing as god(s).

Religion is wrong, science is right.

 

IS THAT BETTER????????????????????????????????????

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That's enough.

[ecoli]

Ok What the hell should i say??????

 

There is no such thing as god(s).

Religion is wrong, science is right.

 

IS THAT BETTER????????????????????????????????????

 

I'm not trying to change your opinions, dude. I'm sorry if you think that.

 

I just think that trying to compare concepts "right" and "wrong" in terms of religion is fruitless. Something can really be wrong it can't be disproven (like religion). And science, which provides evidence cannot be proven to be wrong by religion. I think the two can exist simultaneously, yet neither has anything to say about the other.

 

I think that the above is true regardless of your personal beliefs about God or religion.

[Callipygous]

for something called "the no-arguing thread" the last 5 or so posts sure are interesting... maybe we ignore any unintended offenses and just leave it to the original topic now?

[ecoli]

for something called "the no-arguing thread" the last 5 or so posts sure are interesting... maybe we ignore any unintended offenses and just leave it to the original topic now?

 

It's hard not to argue when I see something like in Blackhole's post. His ideas about religion don't seem malicious, so I feel like if I point out something to him, he might be persuaded to see a different angle (though I don't expect him to adopt it).

 

 

Anyway, this was probably a bad thread to make, considering the reason the P&R board was closed in the first place. After all, the mods have said that GD is not supposed to be a replacement of the P&R board... or at least more heavily moderated so idiots like me don't start conversations that obviously shouldn't have been in this thread. Sorry guys.

 

When is the new site going to be opened so we can discuss issues like this, anyway?

[Martin]

...

 

Heh, why can't we all just...get along.

 

Hi Callipygous, I assume you agree with Snail, me too.

 

thanks to everybody who gave a concise, crystal clear statement of their beliefs

 

that kind of thing is always partial and selective. you have to choose from all your intellectual commitments what is ultimately the bedrock concern.

 

it wouldnt be the same each time. much less for different people!

 

anyway I'm really pleased with each person's Credo!

 

=====================

WHAT SHALL WE DO WITH ALL THE CONTRADICTIONS [between our stated positions]?

 

anybody have an idea about that. shall we just let 'm drop? or instead

shall we pick out the main points of disagreement [between our views] and make a free-for-all argue thread, as a way of further characterizing and enhancing the disagreement?

 

Can anybody look down the list of different confrontations and identify, say, ONE MAIN ISSUE of disagreement? I dont know if that is possible. If there were only one main disagreement---manifested differently---that might be interesting.

 

BTW what do you all feel about arguing? Is it good, bad? Fun, obnoxious? Helpful? Useless?

does a hard-fought debate ever inspire you to get new ideas, new positions on things? or is it always just a pain?

 

perhaps another significant question. is arguing GOOD FOR SFN vitality and traffic? (In that case squelching it would tend to make people go away, and generally chill the board). Or is it BAD FOR SFN to have some energetic arguments going on. (so playing fireman and going around putting out arguments would be generally good for activity "ratings")

 

Any opinions?

================

 

I guess the main question I want to ask is. HOW DID YOU LIKE THIS "NO-ARGUE" THREAD?

I hope you did, I did. Also I was really pleased that IMM and Mokele came right in first thing and said what they had to say in a very relaxed matteroffact way.

 

bravo them, and everybody!

 

EDIT: two bracket statements inserted for clarity

[Martin]

hey,

this is still a "no-argue" thread

so please tell your opinion on these issues, if you have a position to state, and also let the other guy state his position

without confronting him too much about it even if you disagree

[ecoli]

Contradictions - I think that anybody who harps on apparant condtradictions in religious texts (and that includes 'defenders' of the text as well as the 'attackers') are both missing the point of what religion should be about. People who don't try and see the big picture tend to be extremists.. I [usually] don't like extremists.

 

ps - for the love of Jeebus, pointing out a contradiction in the bible doesn't invalidate the entire religion!

[DaveC426913]

I guess the main question I want to ask is. HOW DID YOU LIKE THIS "NO-ARGUE" THREAD?

I liked it. In fact, I think all discussions about religion ever, anywhere in the world, should by law go this way.

 

A: I believe this.

B: I believe that.

A: Well, this has been an interesting talk.

B: Indubitably.

[ecoli]

I liked it. In fact, I think all discussions about religion ever, anywhere in the world, should by law go this way.

 

A: I believe this.

B: I believe that.

A: Well, this has been an interesting talk.

B: Indubitably.

I'd add a section discussing how the two are different - just keep it civil.

[[Tycho?]]

I have no need for religion or spirituality. I was raised with no religious influence, and from a very young age found it totally illogical, and more harmful than good. My reason for not being religious is simply that I see no evidence that would convince me to become religious. My beefs with religion are varied and numerous. I try to be tolerant of religious people, I have several very close very religious friends. And while I am very tolerant, I dont think being religious is a decission I can truely respect, if I want to or not.

 

 

I dont know how many words.

[bascule]

I guess the main question I want to ask is. HOW DID YOU LIKE THIS "NO-ARGUE" THREAD?

 

I'm much more of an argumentative person. My Jungian personality type operate by convincing myself of my own positions via argumentation much more than I use argument to inform or convince otherothers. My positions on issues tend to vacillate quite rapidly based on available information, and for the majority of my opinions I have held the opposite and decided to switch after evidence convinced me otherwise.

 

Thus it's difficult for me to interact with with people who are fixed in their positions and not open to having their beliefs challenged. Most people take offense at having their beliefs challenged and thus interacting with them, when argumentation is the basis of a great deal of my own knowledge, has proven difficult.

[Martin]

Most people take offense at having their beliefs challenged and thus interacting with them,.. has proven difficult.

 

some or perhaps most admittedly take offense but I like having my beliefs challenged the way a dog likes being scratched behind the ears

 

feels good: as long as it's done gently and with wit

 

those that like scratching behind the ears really do like it----and we appreciate some extra turbulence in the local idea-field---a whole lot. I think IMM indicated this, or maybe it was Phi_for_All

 

BTW let me know if anybody is ever arguing with you in a plodding heavy-handed repetitive way----so you feel bent out of shape by the dullness---I will give them a shadow warning for not being entertaining (a grave deficiency:mad: ).

 

if people are going to argue they should have a little flair, a little imagination, in how they go about it

 

An argument has to be entertaining, or else you might as well just walk away----often a good idea in any case.

[padren]

I'll try to throw in my 75 words or less:

 

I believe science and logic are best for understanding the universe and I fear organized religion...but I don't think you have to be religious for a spiritual life. Whether created or accidental, the universe is a humblingly awesome thing to experience, macro to micro. I am constantly floored by the emotional significance life has to offer, if I am here "to be, to see, to turn to dust" I am infinitely grateful for it.

 

74 words.

[padren]

some or perhaps most admittedly take offense but I like having my beliefs challenged the way a dog likes being scratched behind the ears

 

When you debate another person you hope (sometimes against hope) that they'll respect your position enough to carefully consider your statements. Its easy to be so jaded with religion that someone gives a religious minded person the feeling they are not here to debate, since there is no way they'll consider a religious argument with an iota of validity.

Likewise, a rationalist may feel the same way about a religious person who is intractable for completely irrational reasons, but who tries to use rationality to debate in favor of their religious views.

 

In the end its easy to feel the other side is entrenched enough to talk over your points and it makes you feel like the investment in the debate is worthless...which is where I think most of the vitriol comes from.

[Martin]

I'd add a section discussing how the two are different - just keep it civil.

 

that's a good thought, ecoli. or seems so to me anyway.

so what would the thumbnail dialog look like?

 

DaveC put two sections ABAB. Now we should add another installment AB according to your idea:

A: I believe this.

B: I believe that.

A: Well, this has been an interesting talk.

B: Indubitably.

 

[that's what DaveC proposed, now maybe?]

 

A: I'll try to summarize what you said.

What you said was thus and so. Is that a fair summary?

B: Yes (No). Now I'll try to summarize the key difference of viewpoint.

The most essential difference between our views is...

 

[so far so good but then]

 

A: Wretched scum! you have spoken the taboo word.

Energy weapons at 10 paces.

B: You will be annihilated and your water extracted as a gift to the War Goddess.

 

this always happens eventually, doesn't it

[Glider]

Yep, pretty much. A good debate is like sparring with a friend. It's all hunky-dory until one or the other gets a contact jab to the face and starts to lose their temper.

 

The problems with debating beliefs such as religion are that neither side is provable, so you can never expect to reach a resolution, i.e. an end to the debate. There cannot be a winner in any single debate, so the chances of somebody getting a contact jab are increased.

 

Also, most people, at least partly, define themselves by their beliefs (e.g. you hear "I am a Christian" never just "I believe in Christianity". Therefore, any percieved attack on Christianity is a personal attack, by definition.

 

What consitutes an attack is largely down to the sensitivity of the individual. Those who are secure in their beliefs tend to be more laid back about stuff, taking comfort from the axiom "X is true, and is not dependent upon the beliefs of others". This truism holds for both sides of any such debate.

 

Going into a debate secure in the belief that one is right is ok. Going into a debate believing others are wrong will usually result in argument. There is a subtle difference between the two. Believing one is right still allows the possibility that whilst one is right, others may still believe something else. Going into a debate believing others are wrong a) undermines one's one's own beliefs because it defines them by what other's beliefs are not, and b) puts one in a combative stance from the outset.

[Callipygous]

contradictions? learn to deal with them. if you have a sect of a religion that specifically involves intolerance of such differences, like Islamic (or christian for that matter) Fundamentalists, remove them all from the planet before they ruin it for the rest of us.

 

id say debate is generally a good thing. However, there is a certain level of "liveliness" at which it is no longer worth continuing. when people are no longer open to new ideas and are really just yelling at each other.