Grandpa Greenman Posted June 1, 2013 #51 Share Posted June 1, 2013 I can respect the person and not the belief system. There are people here I have the up most respect for but think their belief system is hog wash. There are people here most likely feel the same about way about me too. I added this to my signature a while back. "The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." Salman Rushdie He is right, once to declare ideas off limits to all those things then you can't grow. No one would say the ideas of Hitler to be off limits for criticism except those who blame Jews, etc for all the woes in the world. I'm I going to respect that, I dare say not.Religion is just philosophical ideas about the construct of Universe you can't prove actually right or wrong which is why it is religion not science. . If you can't discuss it without opinion what is the point of even talking about it at all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrooma Posted June 1, 2013 #52 Share Posted June 1, 2013 once to declare ideas off limits to all those things then you can't grow. No one would say the ideas of Hitler to be off limits for criticism except those who blame Jews, etc for all the woes in the world. I'm I going to respect that . ''i may not agree with what you say sir, but i'll defend to the death your right to say it'' -voltaire- . THAT'S being truly open-minded..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenWolf Posted June 2, 2013 #53 Share Posted June 2, 2013 Why do people get so mad?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Liquid Gardens Posted June 2, 2013 #54 Share Posted June 2, 2013 You can often learn a lot about what could have been going on just by listening this way. But at best you are also only as good at interpreting things as far your social programming or lack of it goes, or the belief systems that control your perceptions. It's important to remember that for every account you attempt to interpret and judge against your fixed comprehension, you are doing so with the exact same faulty logic and programmed perceptions that shape how you see the world and universe. Of course that is going to be different to the next persons. We are all unique that way. Depending on what you mean, I agree that everyone uses the 'exact same faulty logic', in that everyone is susceptible to biases and misperceptions, but that does not mean that everyone's logic and perceptions are equal; currently the logic that leads one to believe that infections are caused by microorganisms is in no significant way equal to the belief that infections are caused by demons. Which is why science seems to work so well, nothing is held to the standard of what a particular person or even group of people 'believe' and 'interpret' about an event; it's put to consensus and attacked rigorously and purposely. Everyone's thinking is indeed unique but that doesn't mean they are equal or the same. The lack of respect which develops and causes the offences, results from a lack of the comprehension to maturely suspend all beliefs, judgements and expectations when listening to another, and trying to understand their point view, from their perspective instead of trying to make them understand yours while insisting they must be wrong because there is no 'evidence'. If every person removed the self centredness of their ego from their perspective and approached things truly from a neutral position where they understood 'perception and it's flaws' in the first place, a lot of this would become more civil and insightful and less about right and wrong, more about just understanding consciousness and energy. Which is fine, but with all due respect some people do care about what is true and what is not, and there's nothing necessarily more 'self-centered' about disagreeing than there is in a request to suspend all beliefs. Some people do have some understanding about flaws and the commonness of misperceptions, should those not be pointed out when someone commits one? I would want someone to point mine out to me. I really don't see that much incivility in the first place at least here at UM; I see as many people taking offense at disagreement as I do people being outright incivil, which again is not much. I think the reason people get so upset I'm sure has been mentioned: it is difficult to separate beliefs and ideas from the people who hold them, on both sides of the equation. Too many people, in my own view of course, feel that having their beliefs, especially religious beliefs, criticized or not treated with the reverence they hold for them as personal attacks on them and respond in kind. This is somewhat understandable as many people identify very strongly with their religion on an emotional level. On the other side, too many people actually attack people personally because they themselves cannot separate the belief from the person. This is also somewhat understandable as to some extent, someone's beliefs do reflect on them personally, if you have racist beliefs for example. If people could just attack solely the ideas and not the person, and if the people could just defend those ideas without trying to defend themselves, it'd work out great. I think the proper response to that though is, "good luck with that". 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regeneratia Posted June 2, 2013 #55 Share Posted June 2, 2013 (edited) Providing there is nothing said to make the person feel stupid for saying what they did to begin with, there are people that just can't stand someone thinking differently than them. There is a rabid trend to publicly challenge what people think, without honoring that they have the right to think what they want. Because people, sometimes many people, ambush one poster to publicly humiliate someone, given the victim has a cyber-ego. I have never ever felt I had to defend what I think. If someone questions me with the use of words that have a more negative connotation, I simply think that they are on the attack. I refuse to answer: because the answer can be found by themselves if they take the time to look, or because they choose to use words that clearly indicate their motivations without them knowing they are doing it. I love a person who has a large vocabulary, because it indicates that they have a greater capacity to think. Thoughts and words are strongly linked. If the person who asked me questions better have an expanded vocabulary, indicating that they have an expanded way of thinking, or I am not that inclined to answer them. Edited June 2, 2013 by regeneratia 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Crane Feather Posted June 2, 2013 #56 Share Posted June 2, 2013 It's pretty simple actually. You have got opinionated people and anonymity. Its to easy to get away with rudeness and severe insensitivity. Things that most people would not engage in in person. I'm pretty loud on UM, but if you knew me personally you would consider me very quite, unless you whatch me work. I also think these debates draw competitive people. If your not really competitive chances are you won't speak up. Competitive people get into it. It's just the way it is. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted June 2, 2013 #57 Share Posted June 2, 2013 I also think these debates draw competitive people. If your not really competitive chances are you won't speak up. Competitive people get into it. It's just the way it is. You describe the situation accurately, except that moderators help keep the heat down. The "road rage" that we feel when a rude driver cuts us off and even almost causes an accident is of the same sort, and being competitive achieves nothing. I try to make my points understood, and respond to reasonable objections, and then go on with my journey. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bLu3 de 3n3rgy Posted June 2, 2013 #58 Share Posted June 2, 2013 Depending on what you mean, I agree that everyone uses the 'exact same faulty logic', in that everyone is susceptible to biases and misperceptions, but that does not mean that everyone's logic and perceptions are equal; currently the logic that leads one to believe that infections are caused by microorganisms is in no significant way equal to the belief that infections are caused by demons. Which is why science seems to work so well, nothing is held to the standard of what a particular person or even group of people 'believe' and 'interpret' about an event; it's put to consensus and attacked rigorously and purposely. Everyone's thinking is indeed unique but that doesn't mean they are equal or the same. What I meant was the way everyone processes information, perceives and interprets their experiences ( more specifically metaphysical / non physical based experiences ) via their inner dictionary / symbols and belief systems. Their very belief systems will affect and govern how they indeed interpret what they felt with their senses. I have learned in my self development that our perceptions can evolve as we do, I'm talking about in the realms of meditation, alt states, trace, astral projection, aka the non physical dimensions. Not the physical level. That is why I said that the non physical levels have different laws and rules to that of the physical 3d level, because when it comes to consciousness scientific standard struggles. I am not talking about applying the rules and laws of the non physical to 3d reality to make sense of this, because i know we can't, or do not yet have a language or science that can cross these barriers. So in your example about using the logic of science to know if an infection is caused by a micro-organism or a demon, this is not what i am talking about. I am talking about the level of consciousness that societal programming and belief systems are operative on and how they shape our filters, perceptions when dealing with experiences that go beyond the physical level / dimension. For example person A has a very strong belief system concerning their religious faith, they were brought up Strict Roman catholic, parents installed that into them, in that they did not choose. So their parents influences and perceptions from day one in raising their family were driven by the belief systems of the strict faith which they inherited, lets say in this case these belief systems were fear driven and the family expressed their beliefs in controlling, fearful ways, an over exaggerated fear of something bad happening etc, and heavy intolerance to anything which could trigger this fear -- leading to even more reliance on their religious faith. Then one day person A has an non physical experience, and is put into a state of fear by the experience because there is no possible way to explain it, which is a common reaction and easy for any of us 'armchair observers' to overlook, as the instinct of fear is a trigger mechanism, and goes deep into the psyche of our reptile mind. When triggered into a state of fear, a person is less able to access their higher reasoning and clairty, in metaphysical terms, this means the part of them which is not controlled or coded by societal and ingrained belief systems. Rather, instead these belief systems drive into action and begin to serve the desperateness of trying to understand what was experienced. These reactions happen in milli seconds, for the mind to process and then interpret the experience if it is using the filters of these belief systems, then the interpretation is going to be biased to these beleif systems. Person A as a result sees something demonic, a presence that must be trying to harm them or they wouldn't be feeling this unsafe or fearful. In my earlier post, what i was saying was, most people forget that we all do the same thing, to each other too, using the same faulty logic whenever we try to interpret another's non physical experience. All those who share the same kind of experience as person A with the same back ground as person A will see the experience like person A does. All those who share the experience with A but do not have the same background as person A, ie, they have a different upbringing and set of belief systems, will see the event as something slightly different. Then, someone who has managed to go past the level of belief systems, by suspending them and even de programing themselves of their belief systems, and has the experience which has evolved their perceptions to a point they don't let fear taint their filters, can see the experience at another level too with better clarity than anyone, a level that recognises something did happen, but again may not agree that it was a demonic presence, rather, a being with a energy the person simply didn't understand. Which is fine, but with all due respect some people do care about what is true and what is not, and there's nothing necessarily more 'self-centered' about disagreeing than there is in a request to suspend all beliefs. I care about what is true and what is not, my earlier post wasn't disregarding that, but fully supporting the notion that getting to the 'raw experience' which to me is the truth, is acknowledging that there is still a very real raw experience underneath the mountain of belief driven layers. To me, sifting through these layers that the person has built around the experience in order to try and understand it in 'their language' has to be done to reach the truth. What i am saying is i am not interested in wasting my time on their belief systems, that is something i believe only the person can deal with and evolve themselves through their own experiences, i still want to find the raw experience in it's original blue print format though which exists at the centre of it. Most people just clash at the belief system level and it never gets anywhere and then people end up feeling defensive or offended. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkmoonlady Posted June 2, 2013 #59 Share Posted June 2, 2013 Google Patton Oswalt Sky Cake for the answer to your questions OP. Its funny but he makes a fair point. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Greenman Posted June 2, 2013 #60 Share Posted June 2, 2013 Thank you m'Lady Darkmoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarakore Posted June 2, 2013 #61 Share Posted June 2, 2013 One reason why some get so mad is due to the different types of societies we are from which can influence our cultural behaviors as well as our own personal alignments. "Geert Hofstede discovered 5 fundamental dimensions of national cultures," one of which is, "Masculinity vs. Femininity." [link] [link] Within these cultures both males and females will veer toward one side or the other so that within some of our cultures even the females will value and display masculine traits including aggression. Politics can be more volatile than religion itself. Even with some claiming Jesus will come back and destroy all those who disagree with them, the religious discussions seldom see the levels of hyper masculinity displayed in the politics forums. Just last week had someone on this very forum attempt intimidation by claiming I should meet them "face to face" and had another say they were still a member of the "bloods" gang and that, "My favorite victims were people like you." As comical as that can be the aggression was a sad display of unsportsmanlike conduct but we all know how the internet is...could it be the internet has a culture of its own which veers toward one extreme or the other? What is sadder are the real world combinations of religion and politics which can lead to violence against others. Always in these cultures that mix the two (such as the Taliban) or the subcultures (such as fundamental Christianity) they always favor masculinity and detest femininity to the point of suppressing femininity whenever encountered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle Posted June 2, 2013 #62 Share Posted June 2, 2013 (edited) Just last week had someone on this very forum attempt intimidation by claiming I should meet them "face to face" and had another say they were still a member of the "bloods" gang and that, "My favorite victims were people like you." As comical as that can be the aggression was a sad display of unsportsmanlike conduct but we all know how the internet is...could it be the internet has a culture of its own which veers toward one extreme or the other? That was not intimidation in any form or fashion....it was a paradigm. You were declaring your authority, explaining why no one here had any knowledge of gangs whatsoever, while showing your own ignorance. He happened to be an ex gang member, telling you the truth about the gang mentality...which you, by the way, could not refute. You don't even seem to be able to grasp that even though he no longer runs with a gang you can never really be out of it without putting your whole family in danger. Edited June 2, 2013 by Michelle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sakari Posted June 2, 2013 Author #63 Share Posted June 2, 2013 One reason why some get so mad is due to the different types of societies we are from which can influence our cultural behaviors as well as our own personal alignments. "Geert Hofstede discovered 5 fundamental dimensions of national cultures," one of which is, "Masculinity vs. Femininity." [link] [link] Within these cultures both males and females will veer toward one side or the other so that within some of our cultures even the females will value and display masculine traits including aggression. Politics can be more volatile than religion itself. Even with some claiming Jesus will come back and destroy all those who disagree with them, the religious discussions seldom see the levels of hyper masculinity displayed in the politics forums. Just last week had someone on this very forum attempt intimidation by claiming I should meet them "face to face" and had another say they were still a member of the "bloods" gang and that, "My favorite victims were people like you." As comical as that can be the aggression was a sad display of unsportsmanlike conduct but we all know how the internet is...could it be the internet has a culture of its own which veers toward one extreme or the other? What is sadder are the real world combinations of religion and politics which can lead to violence against others. Always in these cultures that mix the two (such as the Taliban) or the subcultures (such as fundamental Christianity) they always favor masculinity and detest femininity to the point of suppressing femininity whenever encountered. Am I the one who said meet face to face? Only curious as I know I have said that to 2 people here. I can only remember one. It was bad on my part, true, but not something I should have posted. It takes a lot of mocking and such to get me to that point. I don't think you were one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Crane Feather Posted June 2, 2013 #64 Share Posted June 2, 2013 You describe the situation accurately, except that moderators help keep the heat down. The "road rage" that we feel when a rude driver cuts us off and even almost causes an accident is of the same sort, and being competitive achieves nothing. I try to make my points understood, and respond to reasonable objections, and then go on with my journey. Ehhhh it's ok to let go a little bit frank. Nothing wrong with a little passion. Even the best bhudists are still very passionate about not being passionate 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarakore Posted June 2, 2013 #65 Share Posted June 2, 2013 Forgot to add earlier even if had planned to that the Bible itself is divided between the Old and New Testaments. The OT is highly masculine while the NT is highly feminine with perhaps the exception of the book of Revelation. Still depending on one's own cultural and personal alignment one might focus on certain passages over another. One might emphasize the parts of the Bible that deal with the OT message of excluding other groups over embracing all of humanity as found in the NT or focusing on Jesus destroying others in the book of Revelation versus the healing waters also found in the same book. Of course one should take it all in, not always literally of course, but the parts one focuses on is revealing. As far being a moderator of any forum another of Geert Hofstede's five fundamental dimensions is "Individualism vs. Collectivism". To become a leader of any group one would have to usually fall on the collectivism end of the spectrum where thinking like the majority is an asset. In any group those with individual tendencies will be at a disadvantage and having the group and their leaders disagree with their point of view often. Part of the witch burnings were along the theme of the group not liking those who do not fit in perfectly. So a storm ruined the crop or a disease claimed a child and the mob mentality turned on the elderly woman healer thus the collective was against those who seemed different. Collective vs individualism was one of the themes. Same with bullying. The theme is present there too. In a more balanced world the outdated tribal and masculine value of fitting in, going with the group, and attacking those who are different would not be necessary. At one time when we all lived in the wilds collectivism was an asset since if one person was not on board the whole tribe could suffer. This is how we evolved but we can move past some of these scripts in a postmodern world. In many ways we are. These are just my views. Those wishing to be confrontational over them, oh my, sign me up on valuing balance and thinking our society as a whole should also care about the goddess as much as the god and allowing individuality to flourish is something we can now afford in a postmodern world. In fact diversity makes us stronger now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calaf Posted June 2, 2013 #66 Share Posted June 2, 2013 I have been having this happen a lot to me lately. More newer people, but the same thing. First, I want to point out if someone is on a open discussion board as this one, do they not know what " open discussion " means? Second, I have no issues with anyone believing whatever they want, it is when they say their belief is fact, and have no evidence to support this. This is exactly what some do with their religions, they preach it as fact, and we all know how religion and politic discussions end up. Also, if someone does say " this is what I believe", but follow it with " what do you think " , why do they get so damn upset when people start questioning it? I have some awesome PM's, and replies to me of people acting like I just spat on their mothers grave for debating with them, when they got into the debate. Statements are taken as if they can hear my tone of typing, when they can not. ( others also, not just me ) Then, some will " follow " people to other topics and generalize on things they said in another topic, but will not talk about it in the proper topic. It is like they are in a battle to get people to believe them, and not someone else. It is actually comical. Some will put people on ignore, then keep jabbing at them in replies on topics, and even ask them questions when they have them on ignore.....Then, wonder why they do not get answers. Above goes for all topics here. Funny thing, I , and all skeptics I am sure, would love nothing more then to see what people post be real. I WANT to believe some of the things here, I really do. So, anyone care to share why you get so p***ed off when you get into a discussion on a open forum, about anything paranormal? And, if you do get so mad, why do you stay on a open discussion board, and not go to a " believers " forum only? There has to be a reason, and I would love to know what it is. Now, do not get me wrong, there are great discussions here, it is a minority of people ( both sides ) that get in this " defensive" mode, then go into " attack " mode.... I just want to know why is all. I have been forming my opinions, I just want to hear others. I also wish we could get more mature debates/discussions going with people not getting butt hurt over a forum topic. Bravo! You have codified my viewpoint concisely. As for why, I believe it is an inability or unwillingness to separate belief from logical thought. Just as some cannot say, "I'm sorry I was wrong." many cannot say, "This is what I believe, I have no logical reason or proof to back it up but I believe it nonetheless." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beany Posted June 3, 2013 #67 Share Posted June 3, 2013 Hey, Beany, The first part, I agree with everything you said. The second part was steeped too much in US politics. The third part you said, I agree with again. I owe you 2/3rd's of a 'like'. - Likely Guy I think people just forget about good manners. A discussion doesn't need to be adversarial, and in fact, when it turns adversarial, all communication stops. The free flow of an exchange of ideas degenerates into name calling and finger pointing, and at that point it's like watching that old video game, Pong. Sometimes I get caught up in that myself, and it takes a while for me to realize what I'm doing. I recognize it because when I get caught up in, I become angry, frustrated, impatient, and I hate feeling that way, yet I set that dynamic up myself. I have to remind myself not to get sucked into it, because some people are like vacuum cleaners and will suck anyone in they can. I just need to get off the carpet. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle Posted June 3, 2013 #68 Share Posted June 3, 2013 (edited) Let's face it...some people just get your hackles up. It's irritating when the condescension is constant and then they play the victim when someone responds in kind. No one likes to be talked down to, talked at or preached to. I have lots of friends who are teachers and a couple who are preachers and you would never know it by talking to them. They can have a normal coversation without demeaning anyone. I tend to ask more questions than I answer. I learned, when I was tutoring, if you let someone try to explain something to you they get a better grasp of it. If you don't agree with them on certain points simply ask a few more questions to see if they think it sounds logical from a different direction. If nothing else, you know where they stand, and maybe you have opened up an avenue that they hadn't considered before. There is no chastizing for not having the same opinion or experiences to draw from. The more you talk at someone the more you sound like the adults in Peanuts cartoons in their heads. Edited June 3, 2013 by Michelle 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted June 3, 2013 #69 Share Posted June 3, 2013 (edited) I have been having this happen a lot to me lately. More newer people, but the same thing. First, I want to point out if someone is on a open discussion board as this one, do they not know what " open discussion " means? Second, I have no issues with anyone believing whatever they want, it is when they say their belief is fact, and have no evidence to support this. This is exactly what some do with their religions, they preach it as fact, and we all know how religion and politic discussions end up. Also, if someone does say " this is what I believe", but follow it with " what do you think " , why do they get so damn upset when people start questioning it? I have some awesome PM's, and replies to me of people acting like I just spat on their mothers grave for debating with them, when they got into the debate. Statements are taken as if they can hear my tone of typing, when they can not. ( others also, not just me ) Then, some will " follow " people to other topics and generalize on things they said in another topic, but will not talk about it in the proper topic. It is like they are in a battle to get people to believe them, and not someone else. It is actually comical. Some will put people on ignore, then keep jabbing at them in replies on topics, and even ask them questions when they have them on ignore.....Then, wonder why they do not get answers. Above goes for all topics here. Funny thing, I , and all skeptics I am sure, would love nothing more then to see what people post be real. I WANT to believe some of the things here, I really do. So, anyone care to share why you get so p***ed off when you get into a discussion on a open forum, about anything paranormal? And, if you do get so mad, why do you stay on a open discussion board, and not go to a " believers " forum only? There has to be a reason, and I would love to know what it is. Now, do not get me wrong, there are great discussions here, it is a minority of people ( both sides ) that get in this " defensive" mode, then go into " attack " mode.... I just want to know why is all. I have been forming my opinions, I just want to hear others. I also wish we could get more mature debates/discussions going with people not getting butt hurt over a forum topic. There is no room for personal attacks in this forum, although robust debate is useful. I dont get mad at people. I know god and many other paranormal things are real and physical, but OF COURSE this knowledge is personal, as almost all a person's knowledge is personal . The only thing that ever gets me a bit riled up are skeptics who say, "you are wrong" or, "you are lying." When I ask them how they KNOW this, they explain that I must be, because gods and the paranormal are not real. Now that is a belief position, and it cannot be used, logically, to refute or contradict what I believe, eg about the best flavoured icecream, let alone what I physically KNOW to be real and true. Edited June 3, 2013 by Mr Walker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. K. Posted June 3, 2013 #70 Share Posted June 3, 2013 The only thing that ever gets me a bit riled up are skeptics who say, "you are wrong" or, "you are lying." When I ask them how they KNOW this, they explain that I must be, because gods and the paranormal are not real. In order to engage in a discussion, I think you have to be able to at least comprehend the opposing view. I find it a bit humorous when the statement "god doesn't exist" is dropped into the middle of a discussion about God and/or His attributes. It's a bit more irritating when I'm told that I can't believe in God because He's not real, as if even the concept of God doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckys_Mom Posted June 4, 2013 #71 Share Posted June 4, 2013 (edited) With religion - Only a number of religious people ( from any faith ) will show anger once challenged 1 - Bitten off more than they can chew They realize they have not thought it all out as a whole, they see there is more than meets the eye, or things they never understood before, so this cheeses them off and they feel annoyed at the person they were debating with..So they call the challenge an attack on their faith.. 2 - Spoilt and Selfish Some are used to having it all their way ....( their home and personal life in general )... So, when they preach at others and find they are getting nowhere, it's not going their way so out will flow the tantrum..it's the whole - Shut up, listen to me and only me, you don't know anything, how dare you challenge me ? 3 - Backed up against the wall Some will get angry simply because they cannot answer what ever it is you have asked.. My mother would do that the odd time and then claim Satan is working in me, getting me to ask such provoking questions.. And then she would use this classic - "God is angered at your questions"... I think Joseph Smith used that line too.... I stopped talking to her about religion long ago, because I didn't want to fall out with her over it, she is still my wee mommy lol But in saying that, I did note this was just a number of religious people, because so many do not get angry or even care to debate.. These people seem happy enough with what they have and who they are, they are more confident...Then you have those that will come on and post on sites about their faith just to meet others like them and even meet others from all walks of life, they also are happy to debate but never show their anger.. Every religious person differs in my opinion. In politics - They get angry at you because they haven't a clue as to what you are saying, or what they are talking about... They just want to push out whatever agenda they wish and that's that, put that in your pipe and smoke it..!! Dum Dum They also get angered if others who are against them and are a lot smarter, this makes them look the fool Lie to me - Many just get angry because they hate to see others not swallowing their lies...This seems to fit nearly all politicians With people in general From what I personally have observed, so many will show anger if you catch them out in a lie... I have had people close to me including friends who got angry because I had pulled them on a lie and exposed it....They got angry for being caught out and some ( seriously the odd one or two ) would have later apologized and admitted to lying and admitted to getting mad having been caught out... I have had someone close to me who could lie for their country and make their lies most convincing, they got into a habit of it and can't seem to stop.. They would even lie in the middle of apologising for a previous lie .. There is no end to it *shakes head* lol You can watch a thief, but you can't watch a liar.. Edited June 4, 2013 by Beckys_Mom 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orcseeker Posted June 4, 2013 #72 Share Posted June 4, 2013 I assume this is solely focused on belief. Because ones belief is a part of their person, once under threat they will go onto the defence. A sort of self defence if you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jodie.Lynne Posted July 7, 2013 #73 Share Posted July 7, 2013 (edited) I think we're starting to lose the art of civil discourse in our society. Look at someone like Rush Limbaugh, who still is extremely popular with some folks. He and some others have taught us that it's OK and even desirable to use pejoratives for those who disagree with us, to cut people off in mid-sentence who aren't true believers. I saw it during the last 2 election cycles, and in my own family. Perfect example. This sort of supposed debate/discussion would be extremely boring (read: low ratings) if the members of the discussion allowed each other to finish their statement and then ask pertinent questions. However, the mindset of the average viewer is intolerent of such civilized behavior; they want to see a verbal smackdown. The viewer wants to see their hero ( the 'debater' who expresses the viewers own opinion) to give their opponent a WWF style chair beatdown. The winner is the one who is loudest, and comes up with the perfect sound-bite. Forget about rules of debate, intimate knowledge or learning on the subject under discussion, or even general politeness, that's just for sissies and those that "hate America!!" So once again, monkey see, monkey do. That plus the inane notion that everyone's opinion is equal in weight and value. Ya know, the notion the one where your mechanic's opinion on that bizarre rash on your face is just as valid as the epidiomologists. AND, if you have the temerity to actually have knowledge that contradicts someone's dearly held belief, you're just making it up and/or 'bashing' their opinion. Edited July 7, 2013 by JMPD1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted July 8, 2013 #74 Share Posted July 8, 2013 (edited) Then, there is no discussion. As I said, why even bother then? Neither needs to bow down to anyone. And, as I said, again, " if they state it is jut a belief I do not mind " When they state their belief as fact, that is where discussion should happen. That's why I left this place for a while. Well, that and traveling half way around the world for school. You have people that ask a legitimate question about a topic (evolution was generally the topic I got stuck in the most) and then blast all your responses as wrong and stupid because they're not the same as theirs. Why ask the questions if you don't want the answers or can't handle dissenting opinions? I've also noticed that a lot of people get mad about the "open forum" part and habitually whine for non believers to stay out of their areas. I say nuts to them! I go where I want! Edited July 8, 2013 by Imaginarynumber1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imaginarynumber1 Posted July 8, 2013 #75 Share Posted July 8, 2013 [/size] In order to engage in a discussion, I think you have to be able to at least comprehend the opposing view. I find it a bit humorous when the statement "god doesn't exist" is dropped into the middle of a discussion about God and/or His attributes. It's a bit more irritating when I'm told that I can't believe in God because He's not real, as if even the concept of God doesn't exist. Theists are my favorite people to talk/debate with. I personally do not believe and have no desire to, but I like the mythology. I like a theist who can back him/herself up. Your premise,however, cuts both ways when us skeptics are looking for answers and all that we get in response is "god did it". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now