In the religious and philosophical belief forums, there seems not to be a consensus regarding the relgious/philosophical/spiritual beliefs of others who believe differently! Can't we all come to a consensus of letting others be and going our own way, minding our own business? What do you think about this premise?
I think that respectful religious/philosophical/spiritual debate is healthy. It is (most times, depending on who you debate with) intellectually stimulating.
The attackers and haters--yes they can go away and leave everyone alone. The people who are genuinely willing to respectfully discuss and debate their thoughts--I respect them.
To be honest, if people begin to attack me personally, then I just ignore them or end the debate. It's not worth my time. My mission in debate isn't to pompously try to tell people who stupid they are. It's to have an intellectual conversation and share ideas.
That's just my two cents.
I agree. Debating one's stand should be done with honor and respect. You don't have to agree with someone to see their point of view. You don't have to resort to abusive language and name calling when your view differs with theirs. I see no need to be offensive just because someone disagrees with how I believe.
Each of the sides find their purpose through the other.....
The unbelievers needs saving,,,,from their unbelief.
The believers needs saving from their belief.
The believer believes they are smart/right/know because of the unbelievers
The unbelievers believer they are smart/right/know because of the believers.
One cannot exist without the other.
It's a great idea. Now, who is going to convince the Evangelists?
That would kind of shut down the whole forum, wouldn't it?
There is an old saying, that I think came from Ben Franklin: Bad things happen when good men do nothing. Now I admit I have never seen a religious/belief conversion as a result of an argument. But I would hesitate to endorse any premise that led toward apathy toward our fellow humans. "Can't we all come to a consensus of letting others be and going our own way, minding our own business?" can restrict the motivation to help one another.
I think that if we error at all on content we should lean toward erring in favor of free speech. Open exchanges of ideas, even opposite ones, is part of the integrity of our global internet activity.
Perhaps I should not have anwered this, as it would seem our positions are antagonistic?
Of course, intelligent discourses are wonderful and healthy but some people cannot comprehend this concept and go for the jugular, personally attacking those who they disagree with! This is so sad indeed!
Agreed. Online discussions may not directly lead to conversions, but they can sow the seeds of doubt in one's position enough that over time, opinions can change. I've seen it happen. And the solution to speech we don't like is MORE SPEECH!
To paraphrase the late educational psychologist and motivational speaker, Dr. Leo Buscaglia, we don't have to love and/or agree with others but PLEASE DO NOT HURT THEM!
Gmwilliams, if everyone on the internet got along and we all acted civil, the Internet would self-destruct. Thats what happens, you know; satellites explode upon exposure to agreement. That being said, I think you're right, we should just find a way to get along dispite our differences a- *boom*
I have been giving this some thought and review and find it amazingly similar to problems that were faced in the late '90s. We begain forums to discuss and truly debate important internet governance issues. Most were either under the umbrella or direct management by ICANN (Internet Corporation for the Assignment of Names and Numbers.
The problems came about between public policy people and technical engineers. We just did not speak the same language or have the same foundation for our understanding each other. Folks who just barely disagreed became angry and frustrated with the other side because they were saying the same thing differently. The only restriction that worked well was "no personal attacks".
Here atheists speak a language of truth by proof and the spiritual speak a language of truth by faith. Neither is right in the other's language. Both are right in their own language. Seeking understanding through rigorous debate is a great goal. Seeking to prove the other wrong is not worthy of time spent.
I suppose my conclusion is that individual restraint is our only proper option for censorship. And generally that is best excercised by not responding to baiting, easier said than done.
by Thomas M D Hemsley4 years ago
This forum is for anyone here who wishes to debate on the subject of religion and religious beliefs. Outline your position, whether it be theist or atheist, explain why you hold that position, and then people can debate...
by SpanStar5 years ago
As far back has recorded American history it seems Christains worked to provide education, health care, and hope. The PBS program below link is about 26 minutes long as the program is titled Religion &...
by Grace Marguerite Williams2 years ago
that other people must believe as THEY do?
by kerryg4 years ago
If we discovered proof of life on other planets, would it affect your religious views? Would it affect your beliefs differently if the extraterrestrial life was bacteria vs an advanced civilization? Christians, would...
by Claire Evans16 months ago
Ashers Baking Company in Ireland was found guilty of discrimination for refusing to make a cake for a local gay activist. It was to mark the election of the first openly gay mayor in Northern Ireland, Andrew Muir. They...
by Ron Montgomery7 years ago
Possible? Interesting? Shortest thread ever?I was raised in a conservative Christian family, but no longer refer to myself as a Christian. I am agnostic, meaning I live in a world full of...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.