Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joseph on August 17, 2011 at 8:56pm

Good advice.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shalee Mae Coleman on August 17, 2011 at 9:15pm

Thank you so much, I have already started.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jerod on August 17, 2011 at 2:54pm

I don't think there is anything wrong with debate or even trying to change someone's worldview unless it is done disrespectfully or against that individual's will. The primary purpose for debate should be to find the truth for YOURSELF, and the secondary purpose is to help the other person to find the truth, whether that be your belief or theirs or neither. If someone is completely unwilling to listen to your arguments and constantly replies with insults, don't bother debating them. Conversely, if you are debating someone and they use an argument that you think is stupid, don't tell them that you think they are stupid, simply explain why you think that argument is wrong with kindness. You all know what self-righteousness is, but what about the same thing with intelligence? (The term for this escapes me) But you know what I mean. Don't think and act like you know it all, and show respect for the other person.  :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shalee Mae Coleman on August 17, 2011 at 9:14pm

Thank you for your reply.

I am not quite sure where I stand on the issue of personally changing someone's worldview. I don't really think it can be done. I think that is something very personal that someone has to discover on their own, but of course if people were searching and asked me I suppose I would be happy to tell them about what I believe. I would never have the ulterior motive of converting them though. That just seems wrong to me. I agree with your debate and conversational ettiquette, the first step in having an important conversation or debate is to have respect for the other on both sides.

Thanks again.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jerod on August 18, 2011 at 11:45am

I think you're right on this one. :)   

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rocky john on August 18, 2011 at 1:46pm

I dont go knocking on their front door spreading the good news of atheism, i am not shouting about my atheism from the street corner, i am not  harrasing people on the street to join my disbelief. to be honest 95% of all the arguments i have had with theists is upon them learning i was an atheist and trying to change my world view. but maybe you are talking more about people like richard dawkins, the "militant" atheists , maybe you think those type of people should just shut up and bow their heads in silence? let me ask you this. do you think the gay movement would have ever got anywhere if its proponents had just shut up and not rocked the boat? where exactly do you think the gay movement would be now if its "militant" proponents had taken the course of leat resistance that  think is the best option? should they respect the other persons opinion that being gay is an abomination  and that they are evil and deserve eternal punishment?

 

"I agree with your debate and conversational ettiquette, the first step in having an important conversation or debate is to have respect for the other on both sides." be real here. if you are arguing against someone who wants to bring back slavery of blacks should you respect his opinion? or how about those neonazis or holocaust deniers? now i know that these are the extremes but it shows the absurdidty of respecting someones opinion regardless of how wrong or ill informed that opinion is

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jerod on August 18, 2011 at 5:45pm

Do you think if you just yell at those neonazis and holocaust deniers that they are idiots it will seriously yield better results than if you were to sit down and explain why they are wrong and how serious the propositions they make really are? Respecting someone's opinion doesn't mean you agree with it, it is just how you respond to it. And hatred is never the right response no matter how offensive they can be. :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on August 18, 2011 at 6:00pm

Do you think if you just yell at those neonazis and holocaust deniers that they are idiots it will seriously yield better results than if you were to sit down and explain why they are wrong and how serious the propositions they make really are?

 

Sometimes it will.  As the saying goes, "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into to begin with."  You can't always change a person's mind just by reasoning with them; however, if their actions are harmful or destructive, you can sometimes get them to at least toe the line, regardless of what beliefs they maintain.  You can make it uncomfortable for them to espouse hatred or ignorant views.  This creates an impetus for them to open their mind a bit.

 

Yeah, it's always good to try reasoning first, but honestly, it's okay to hate sometimes too, provided you don't push it to the extremes where you devalue basic human dignity and rights.  It's a legitimate human emotion worth feeling and even expressing from time to time.  I wish I were better at it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jerod on August 18, 2011 at 6:14pm

I like your input. But I sstill disagree. I think if someone is completely unwilling to listen to reason and their beliefs/actions severely offend someone, then there is nothing you can do and nothing you SHOULD do but ignore it. Hating them might bring the temporary satisfaction of scaring them off or shutting them up but it never lasts and it only damages the individual even more than they already are. However, if an individual PHYSICALLY damaging people be it because of his or her beliefs or any other reason.. well thats what we have prison for. And believe it or not people can be punished ot of kindness. Hatred still never comes into play. :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on August 18, 2011 at 6:34pm

Hating them might bring the temporary satisfaction of scaring them off or shutting them up but it never lasts and it only damages the individual even more than they already are.

 

That's speculative and not relevant to my point.  It's not just about them; it's about everyone.  It's about onlookers who don't speak up because no one else is.  It's about the victims of hate speech.  It's about being honest about what we really think and feel and communicating it before it festers.  It's about creating an environment where we are capable of of experiencing and expressing a full gamut of emotions without it always damaging others so deeply.

 

Civility is worth a lot, but if civility just turns to dispassionate aversion and complacency, it ain't worth a damn.  Conflict is a part of life, and sometimes it's ugly.

 

When I was in school, homophobia was still widely socially acceptable, despite the fact that most people found it repugnant.  We tried being reasonable and tolerant, but it was just too easy and too comfortable for that sort of behaviour to persist.  Real people suffered as a result.  Those who were openly GLBT, those that were closeted, those that had loved ones who are GLBT, and those that just believed in equality plain and simple.  It's not until people started consistently applying pressure and showing open contempt for homophobia that the behaviour started to decline.  Did the homophobes stop being homophobes?  I'm sure some grew out of it and some did not.  Past a certain point, it's not my problem anymore.

 

This is not to say that it is the only way the situation could have been handled or that it was even the best way, but honestly, there probably isn't any such thing as the 'best' way.  Nothing is perfect, so we do what we can.  It's about context.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jerod on August 18, 2011 at 7:05pm

We have come to an agreement. :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The Doctor on August 17, 2011 at 5:43pm

I agree that religeon in mass is a detriment, and to a certain extent ANY realigeon.

However I see the subject like this, just as folks here don't want beligerance in any open discussion, atheists only fuel the fire of "well of course they're like that" with negative rhetoric.

Now there are times where a little more "forceful" approach is neccesary.

I didn't necessarily come to TA to debate, but be around other like minded individuals, and I have different stances on this than some of my respected friends do here, and that's fine with me, at least there is open dicussion.

If anything it disproves the stereotype atheists have, we don't ALL agree. I don't think any individual truelly does.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page