The issue, though, is that many people who make remarks pertaining to their beliefs, whether religion or not, but mostly religion, do not see their remarks as irrational/delusional/narrow-minded. They believe what they are saying.
That's immaterial regarding whether or not such remarks
are "irrational/delusional/narrow-minded" or specious opinions. Not incidentally, the determination of those descriptive aspects relies upon rationality/logical reasoning/definitions of those adjectives, (not upon unsubstantiated opinion). Therefore, an unsubstantiated opinion coming from someone who posts remarks which are "irrational/delusional/narrow-minded"/specious opinions is inherently biased and self-serving unless it has a basis in rationality/logical reasoning/definitions of those adjectives.
They express their opinion to you and you still cut them down.
On the contrary, that is the subjective impression/opinion of someone who doesn't appreciate logical reasoning and rationality, (apparently preferring irrationality/self-delusion/narrow-minded blind faith instead). For example, if someone engages in a civil litigation alleging 'slander' or 'libel', not only must they demonstrate that financial or other
actual damages have resulted but, must be demonstrated
by valid evidence, (not specious opinion), to be
false. That means, if the allegations are
true, such a libel or slander case will be dismissed by a court.
'Dumbed-down'; that means 'if the shoe fits ...'
So, then if they try to remark something back to you that your remark is only your opinion ...
No, there's a difference between an
informed and rational basis for an "opinion" and an uninformed and irrational basis for another opinion.
... you still come back at them about their opinion of your opinion is "specious, empty-based, etc."
That occurs only in such instances where their counter-opinions continue to stem from an uninformed and irrational basis. In an instance where such a basis is
informed, rational and factual, such an opinion would not be designated as specious.
However, you are trying to force your opinions as facts and that is where the crux of the matter is.
No; once again the "crux of the matter" is the qualitive
difference between an
informed and rational basis for an "opinion" and an uninformed and irrational basis for another opinion. Further, neither an uninformed nor, informed opinion can be "forced" in a text-based medium. One remains able to accept or reject other opinions as they choose - there are no tazers on FC.
People are entitled to their beliefs and opinions, whether they are agreeable with you or not, based on what both sides see or understand about the subject.
Indeed, I've previous agreed, (more than once), that people are "entitled" to whatever specious/non-specious belief/disbelief uninformed/informed opinions they choose to hold. Whether or not such is "agreeable" or disagreeable is only relevant when discerning the difference between an
informed and rational basis for an "opinion" and an uninformed and irrational basis for another opinion. Every instance of my challenging such "opinions" has arisen from an understanding of that difference, (and an apparent failure to discern that difference by those who object to having their cherished "opinions" challenged/questioned).
I can see challenging some opinions or some of what some may say are facts when they really may not be. You challenge anything and everything a religious person's posts using your same words over and over and over and over again.
Since generally the same unsubstantiated religious opinions are being posted and re-posted, over and over again, why should my challenges to them be any different? If different challenges are wanted, perhaps different religious beliefs should be posted.
People would like to maybe see actual responses from you with reasons included about your ideas, instead of simply turning them off with your same big words over and over. It starts to sound like a recording you are perhaps hiding behind instead of discussing the issue.
Those
are my actual responses to religious dissembling & prevariacations, in the words I normally use to communicate with. If such words are 'too' "big", the options are easily defined. Learn new words or, ignore posts which aren't understood. There are over 4,245 of my posts clearly demonstrating that I haven't been "hiding" behind words to discuss a subject. On the contrary, I've used words whose meanings are known to me to articulate my reasoning when replying to a contentious post, (as I'm doing now).
I've seen you joke with others on things and discuss other subjects with opinions and facts back and forth, very funny and great, at that, yet with the religious subjects, the recording is clicked on ...
That's no "recording". To reiterate; those
are my actual responses to religious dissembling & prevariacations, in the words I normally use to communicate with. If such words are 'too' "big", the options are easily defined. Learn new words or, ignore posts which aren't understood.
... instead, to combat remarks and opinions made from others, which then just goes nowhere, and instead, stirs the pot ...
If a discussion or debate seems to be going "nowhere", that's because at least one of the participants isn't choosing to employ logical reasoning to either their position or, the position of another, (alternatively, a participant may be unable to employ logic and instead, becomes incensed when their illogic/irrationality is challenged ... which is additionally irrational). In order for a debate to proceed, the participants involved would each present opposing viewpoints and then logically, (or, illogically, I suppose), argue/provide supporting evidence for their position. Debates which go "nowhere" usually consist of at least one participant putting forth irrational/illogical/unsubstantiated 'opinions' in lieu of reasoned rebuttal or refutation.
... because they are not being acknowledged with their thoughts and opinions with respect and courtesy.
Contrary to an opposite 'belief',
no one is under any obligation to acknowledge specious or, non-specious opinions or beliefs, (either with "respect and courtesy" or, disrespect and discourtesy). By responding at all to any
publically-posted opinions or beliefs, such are being acknowledged as extant. The holder of an opinion or belief does not have the ability to choose how their publically-posted belief/opinion is acknowledged, (or not acknowledged). That would be 'pre-censoring', repressive and disrespectful. That street runs both ways and my policy is that respect is earned, not passed out like candy at All Hallow's Eve. Such
initial disrespect as is liberally handed-out by several xtians is either disregarded or, (if insistant), returned in spades.
Remember that 'ignore button' or, keep 'trolling' by ignoring the substantive replies made to your non-quoting posting method in order to rant on.
"The fundamentalists, by 'knowing' the answers before they start, and then forcing nature into the straitjacket of
their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science --or any honest intellectual inquiry."
-- Stephen J. Gould
"An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a g-d. He only has to be
someone who believes that the evidence on the g-d question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf
question."
-- John McCarthy
Community Forum
Topic: Forum issues too much to put up with (Read 30415 times)
October 17, 2009, 08:19:37 pm
