"If nobody corrects me, I must be correct!"

Post Reply New Topic

There is a difference between actively attacking someone for their religion and explaining why you yourself don't personally buy a particular religion--which may involve criticizing it, but don't expect someone to reject a religion without criticism. That only makes sense to me. When you explain why you won't believe a particular religion, you are not necessarily implying that you think other people shouldn't believe in said religion; only why you aren't. Nor are you attacking people for believing in another religion. It is impossible for people to not have an opinion of someone else's beliefs or opinions, whether for good or for bad; the fact that I am simply voicing them on a debate forum and the fact that you blame us for criticizing you (we're not even criticizing you anyways) or your religion shows your intolerance for others to have their own opinions.

But when (and if) you blatantly tell people they are "wrong" for not believing in religion, telling them they are going to hell if they don't believe, and try to pass of your own personal beliefs as truth to other people who may not have a reason to accept them, and act on your hate or criticism of disbelievers, then you cross the line of your own "personal opinion", offend others who have every right to their choice or decision, and who have done you no harm and do not deserve your mocking of their disbelief by saying they are "wrong", then disrespect the forum or debating rules and make fallacious arguments to make yourself look better.

I don't know if you do these things, but I know there are people who do that.

Angelus: he does. OK, he may not be a parakeet, as his name suggests, but some of his answers to the non-belivers out there seem more akin to the rantings of a galah.

ianap: We've all been the victims of yours (and a couple of others of your ilk) assinine comments regarding our views, and when someone gives you a good explanation, you close the book, get up and throw a tizz. If you want to convince us that your religion or god is worth all the pain and suffering, do it without the childish behaviour. Otherwise, the pink and grey bird I mentioned above will haunt you for the rest of your days.

To the OP: Alone it doesn't really prove anything. If we argue about something in which proper rules of logic apply and I state something that simply can't be proven wrong with logic then it makes me correct, doesn't matter what you say.

On the other hand, if we are arguing about something that doesn't really have clear rules like belief based systems then you can't really claim anyone to be wrong. By belief based I mean for example we can't really obtain solid proof wether life after death exists or not.

Probably, but if I stated that, he'd probably retort with something like saying he doesn't do any of those things. So instead of him denying what I said and trying to invalidate it, I'd make a general case instead that applies to anyone who might be guilty of committing such fallacies. So, you be the judge.

I think this needs a bit more context. Snake asked, very politely, if a religious believer could give a logical reason for believing in their religion. He specifically asked for non-believers to keep out of the thread to avoid another flame fest. He got no replies until Climber started wondering why. I have asked, very politely, a question about the logic of one religious doctrine, with a poll attached. 4 people stated in the poll they believed something that I think is logically inconsistent, but none of these four contributed anything to the thread to say why.

But this forum usually has several confrontational threads about religion. I can think of an atheist and a Christian who, by my standards, are both flaming trolls, their thread titles and opening posts are so inflammatory that I'm sure it's deliberate. They very quickly get responses, lots of them.

I can come up with only two plausible explanations for this contrast (perhaps others can find more). Either most people respond to questions about religion only if you annoy them enough, or people are unwilling to engage in a calm and well reasoned argument because their opinion on religious matters is based more on emotion than thinking and they have nothing to say if thinking is asked for.

The second explanation becomes still more plausible if you consider that Snake's thread was a golden opportunity for some persuasive evangelizing, instead of the shouting that is more likely to put people off.

From this context, I conclude that Climber's suggestion is not logically necessary, but is a reasonable inference in this particular case.

In a broader context, silence probably is the most commonly misinterpreted answer to a question or assertion. Often whoever asks or asserts something then interprets silence in whatever way suits them best, and then relies absolutely on this interpretation, logic be damned. In general, you have a point. If I knew no other context, I would say you are right. But as I see the context, I find Climber's suggestion to be plausible.

Last edited by Gromit on 20 Nov 2007, 4:38 am, edited 2 times in total.

Good answer. People just can't expect to start up a conversation or thread on something then only expect those that agree with them to contribute. Society doesn't work that way. Everyone should be entitled to argue their point of view on whatever topic, be it religion, elections, bearing arms or whatever. If someone doesn't like what someone has said in their reply, then they can counter with a better argument; if they don't, then it is akin to 'taking their bat and ball and going home'. Also, just because someone is silent on a topic doesn't mean they have aggreed, as has been said, it means that they either are thinking of a better argument or the argument in itself doesn't warrant a reply. Unfortunately, religious people tend to get very one-eyed on their point of view, and don't like hearing negative answers, just in case they then would have to question their dogma, which they would rather not do.

Truth, IMO, is just a name we give to our social constructions. The supportive reinforcement we get from others may eventually convince us that our constructions are exclusively valid.

Diversity is a dirty word to some people.

And I guess this could describe a Christian's views on any argument they don't seem to agree with:

[img][url][img]http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff129/Cowboys-07/HERO_INSIDE_YOURSELF.jpg[/img][url][/img]

If only they would open their minds and digest the whole argument, then they might be able to discuss something sensible. Until then, they are searching for the hero inside themselves.

That should be your avatar, TCO.

Can't handle the truth, Ragdoll. Proves my point. It looks like in any argument Christians will always be operating with a blunt scalpel, because how ever hard they try to convince us their fantasy is fact, we will always know better. A bookful of folklore such as you keep spouting is about as much fact as a copy of Playboy or Penthouse. But at least with those, they can be useful for some adult entertainment. All the Bible is good for is for propping up the coffee-table.

Only fundamentalist Christians, and the problem is not their Christianity, but their fundamentalism. An absolute belief that one opinion is so obviously true that it doesn't need critical examination is not restricted to religious or even political opinions either. You can find free market fundamentalists, for example, who can compete with any religious fundamentalists when it comes to being narrow minded.

Good point. And the thing is, the fundamentalists seem to have the loudest voice when it comes to proclaiming whether they are right, and they are really supposed to be minority of the group they represent. Free thinkers, or those that don't ascribe to the viewpoint of the fundamentalists, are therefore howled down at any opportunity because of the fact that their opinion doesn't go with the fundamentalist 'flavour of the month'. And society becomes the worse for it.

Although Snake has been an okay conversationalist there are others that aren't who are the discounters of what they don't believe in (Id est, Christ.) Wrong Planet can at sometimes be likened to a Wal-Mart of religion: everything discounted and mostly from China.

I agree, and probably fundamentalist atheists as well

Fundamentalist athiests are apalling.

Fundamentalist athiesm seems to be relatively recent, or at least, I didn't encounter it when I first decided to become athiest. But you've got athiests running around these boards who'll claim in all seriousness that religion is a mental disorder, that all atheists are automatically smarter and better than anyone with any sort of religion, and "because the religious start wars we should kill them all". They don't see the error in this line of thinking either.

My fellow athiests shame me. I'd rather hang out with the Christians. Hell, I'd rather hang out with the muslims... sure, they want to kill me, but at least they'd do it with a grenade rather than cause me to burst blood vessels seething over the hypocricy, self righteousness, and stupidity.