I could get rich just collecting the strong judgements we make as a first response to a statement we disagree with. We are writers, and writers impact the world powerfully. Suppose we try to listen before we judge. Face it, in a religion forum we are going to disagree. But could we please do it politely. And listen to each other before rushing to judgement.
Or is it an unfortunate trait of religion and its friends and enemies that we prefer to argue blindly, without listening. If that is so I will have no choice but to boycott this forum. I know that i am just one little voice, but unless people wake up to the reality there will be many others.
Not just as a response. The first posts in thread are often already emotive and loaded.
This is life, it's nothing wrong with judging the key word is how did you say is "do it "politely", but, if you waiting for that to happen then you need to boycott this forum, or grow thick skin. Some people are so outraged that they vent disagreeably, but it's not personal.
You should start you boycott now since there are lots of locos in this forum. It's supposed to be scientific and rational forum but some turned it into a playground.
It is usually a good idea to reflect for 30 seconds before I type anything here. If I was in a room full of people having the same type of discussion as happens here, people would likely be much more aware of the potential intensity (and possible personal danger) involved in what is communicated.
Strong reactions are fine, passion and commitment are admirable as long as there is open mindedness and respect for other peoples experience.
The problem of becoming judgmental in debates is threefolds. 1. when people attack the character of a person and not the person's erred statement. 2. when someone applies false info or irrelevant info the main theme is lost, opening another door to attack the irrelevant statement, which leads off the path. 3. the average person is not a professional debater. there are strict rules to formal debates & the professional adhere to them. But the amateurs in their quests to be idolized do not follow those rule. Moreover they don't even know them.
Three general rules to keep personal attacks out of informal debates: 1. define the topic, stick to the premise, restate the premise in each of your rebuttals (it's not as idle as it sounds). 2. keep all rebuttal concise and to the point. 3. cite creditable sources and expert options in rebuttals.
I can add one to that.
No trying to legitimatize perversion.
Oh hey! That's probably already the first rule of civil behavior; ya know, common decency.
That would cut down on a LOT of controversy.
It's not "blind" arguing when one says common sense and decency should prevail from the start. It's only blind arguing when people try to say the basic rules should be changed.
There are some ideas that should never be even SAID.
Perhaps a bit of soap and water to wash out nasty mouths with would do the trick too.
You getting on your soapbox about the 'nasty' gay population again Brenda? Here's one of your scriptures for you 'If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out!' - Incidentally, it's off topic in here
I must agree whole-heartedly with this post. Especially number 1. above. It's an attitude of defensiveness that gets many into a heated battle which is usually sparked by the number one above. I've seen it time & time again. By personal experience, I found I was extremely offended when I was told "...you disgust me with your blah blah blah...." It was a bit personal. In other words, I disgusted the person with my inner belief, not particularly anything I said. It struck me as stab in the stomach. '
One usually becomes defensive when attacked.
It always goes south when someone comes in and starts using language like "perversion" and condescends to people. That is how civil conversations are destroyed. The rhetoric becomes pejorative or inflammatory, then the debate you are seeking unravels. Some people always resort to that sort of thing.
I think the main reason religious debates fall apart is that for many, their belief is so strong it becomes certainty. Certainty drawn from and in support of their belief in a divine being. Once someone has that sort of certainty, there is no longer a reason for them to engage in debate.
The only rhetorical purposes available for someone for whom consideration of other options is no longer an intellectual strategy is to convert, discredit or ridicule. That's what always happens. That's why all the polemics threads (religion, politics, and the subsets, abortion, gun control, gay rights, euthanasia, death penalty, war, etc.) are so predictable, especially in a public forum like this.
These sorts of forums are not intellectual debates, despite having rare moments where they appear to get close. They are really just a sequence of opinions rather than well reasoned arguments. Perhaps if you come to them with that understanding, you will be less troubled by them.
This is very nicely put shadesofbreath. I fall short on the understanding bit. I don't say it's my way or no way, I listen and absorb information, and to be honest I've learned quite a lot while I've been on hubpages, and many people have interesting ideas. However, I become incenced by people who are so narrow minded, yet claim they are living their lives according to the good book. This is where I need to gain patience and understanding, and allow these people to have their two minute rant about the perverted world they have to live in, without becoming fired up about it. Tolerance is a virtue some of these self-acclaimed preachers need to take on board themselves.
Agree absolutely. People with no argument can only fall back on insult or dogma - you would think if they had nothing to say they could at least just shut up.
I wonder if many people understand that whatever we believe is true only for them, even if we are right.
Hi Shades - I don't fully agree. The same people are probably equally or even more certain that 2 + 2 = 4, but they don't get hot under the collar about it. And even if someone denies it, they won't care because proof is readily to hand.
The reason the over-zealous are so quick to anger is not that they are certain they are right - it is that they are afraid they might not be, and cannot countenance that possibility, because they have built their lives on their conviction. But of course, they have no proof to fall back on.
Fully agree with this too - it is also that these people have made life decisions based on their beliefs, if the beliefs are discredited then their life will be in some ways devalued.
This part I see. But why would somebody want to discredit a person's belief? Because the somebody thinks it's dumb? Stupid? Really? When the above action takes place toward an individual, (the attempt to discredit their belief) it's done in a manner that's much like throwing mud pies in the face of someone in a jeering, mocking way because the someone believes that way.
That's the problem I have with it.
Discreditting someones beleif is how religion spreads, That what those people are doing on your porch with their platitudes in hand.
Would you not want someone to tell you that you were living a lie or would you rather live with the lie because it is your belief?
Who determines if it is a lie?
Truth to some is a lie to others.
Like i often say,
"when i see someone walking toward fire, shall i yell out stop or merely wave and wish them a happy journey". Apparently this is the dilemma of both the atheist and the christian. lol.
The reason I oppose religious belief is because (in my opinion) it is a cynical social construct that has evolved from a spritual thing to something where people are indoctrinated to look up a hierarchical ladder to some kind of imaginary light. Then the people who control religious societies stand in that light and assume the higher position and people accept it because they look up.
The people up there are no different from you or I, they are just 'up there' and religious types accept that this is the natural order of things. kings directly claim that their power is given to them by god, this goes back a long way, at least as far as Egypt with Pharoah as the human Sun god.
Without religion we have to look at each other without that superior thing of believing that we are one step up that imaginary ladder.
This is an interesting reply. This is the way to discuss without being critical or judgemental. You didn't mock or demean (that I could see or sense). I don't have to agree, neither does anyone else. But I'm not going to shoot darts at you because you don't 'see it my way'. You just stated your own idea about it without judging or demeaning anyone, or myself. Some may take it that way if they were standing with a warring microchip on their shoulder. I choose not to have that microchip in place. You have not bashed any one individual because of a differing belief. By depersonalizing the opinion not directed at an individual, you make it non-judgemental. You have simply stated your opinion. This is an example of the goal of the original post: We have to disagree without being judgemental. And I can appreciate that.
I think for some, perhaps many or even most, you are quite right. But I've known a few of these sorts well enough to believe that there are some who are just, well, dumb enough to belief they actually "know" the truth--too dumb to reflect and too arrogant (a by product of being too dumb to reflect) to believe they could possibly be wrong. In the end, though, it doesn't matter whether someone's nasty argumentitiveness is the product of fear of being proved a fool or just a loud-mouthed superiority complex, when it all shakes out, an a-hole is an a-hole.
Hear, Hear. The real dichotomy as far as I'm concerned is not between the religious and the non-religious, but between those who debate in order to find the truth and those who debate in order to prove themselves right.
Hey Jim, just to let you know...I wrote a hub on the misconception of truth versus perspective truth.
"Truth to some is a lie to others" - is absurd. There is truth and lie in your singular statement. The truth in your statement is that it is a lie.(no offense intended)
I know of a thread which ran yesterday and today its gone. I also know of some people who go out of their way to be-little others just because their rude and ego filled. I also know some of them play favs with the room reps and vise-versa.
If a person started a forum topic thread and the topic is in the form of a simple question, Its rude for anyone to enter the topic thread and begin with some off the wall (rude) statement about the topic question, when the off statement clearly be-littles the person who started the room thread in the first place. This happened recently and whats even more concerning is the fact that the rude person never did answer the topic question, therefore, making it very clear the only reason the rude person entered the forum topic thread, was with ill intent to cause some trouble. If thats not true, then please tell me why the rude person entered the room in the first place?
If the rude person didn't like the question, as they said as soon as they entered the forum, then why not just say out of the room. Simple as that. But...no, they had to go in and start trouble by being rude and disrupting the thread.
The other problem is that some not only like to be rude...they also like to (change) the topic question and the words which were part of that question. For instance: There is a "Big" disparity between the word (Some) and the word (All) when used in the form of a question.
The other problem is some people come into the forums, read the topic and instantly think that they "know" exactly what the thought process (thinking) was of the person who set the room topic up. I believe no one should try and second guess the thoughts of any person who set the room up. Not only is it wrong, its disrespectful.
On a last note here, I believe all criminals try to hide their "true" criminal nature (If Only For A Few Seconds) Why, you may ask? Well, if a man was walking down the sidewalk and he's packin a loaded gun in his pocket, no one see's that its there because he's (hiding) it. So then he pulls it out suddenly and shoots the man dead on the sidewalk in front of him.
For a few seconds in time that killer was hiding his "true criminal" nature in his pocket. Another classic case of a criminal hiding his or her "true criminal" nature is this: A woman is drunk and she gets in her car and drives away.
Not only is she breaking the law but she runs over some innocent victim with her car. Now, do you think she told anyone she was driving "drunk" "before" she did it and before she ran over her victim?
I don't think so!
Therefore, here again... for a few moments in time the criminal was "hiding her true criminal nature" Last but not least, You DO NOT have to know someone is a criminal in order for that person to be a criminal.
History shows us many persons have committed crimes which have gone unsolved leaving us without the knowing of WHO the criminal or criminals were.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
by Elizabeth 5 years ago
In debates, what do you think constitutes a personal attack?With debates spanning the full spectrum from civilized and polite discussions to blatant screaming and name calling, I've noticed that a lot of people are quick to claim that they're being attacked, when the other party has done nothing of...
by breathe2travel 6 years ago
What does it mean to be spiritual or religious?If someone is spiritual, do you think they're religious? Or, do you think someone can be spiritual without being religious? Do you think someone can be religious without being spiritual?
by rhamson 3 years ago
Having watched two of the GOP Presidential debates first hosted by Fox and then one hosted by CNN it sickens me the way they both decided to format the questions and answers. These are not debates as none of the time is spent on how the candidates will solve anything with any resolve instead...
by alexandriaruthk 5 years ago
Can you be religious without being spiritual?Which one is better?
by lizzieBoo 7 years ago
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind, " according to Einstein. The new fundamentalist secularism, as lead by the likes of Hitchens, Dawkins and and Hawking, is "intellectually disappointing," according to Johnathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi in London,...
by PhoenixV 2 years ago
What Would Our World Be Like Without Atheism?Not that I would ever advocate, suggest or imply the eradication of a humans personal belief system, which I do not believe is possible or even appropriate to suggest, but asked in response to a similar current question.
Copyright © 2018 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. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|