Why Don't People Believe?

@Resha Caner,

I live in a spiritual world, and I am a spiritual man...It just does not weigh much, and I never put my finger on the scale....

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

I live in a spiritual world, and I am a spiritual man...It just does not weigh much, and I never put my finger on the scale....

That sounds poetic, but I'm not sure what it means. Do you mean, "Never thought about it and don't really care"?

1 Reply

@Resha Caner,

Hawking is probably talking about determinism. In this case, everything would be "inevitable" and not just our beliefs. But if we were to come upon an equation that explained everything, that would not imply that physicalism cannot be true, it would only mean that any person who comes to believe in physicalism would do so inevitably.

I think?

0 Replies

@Resha Caner,

Resha Caner wrote:

That sounds poetic, but I'm not sure what it means. Do you mean, "Never thought about it and don't really care"?

I think about everything, and care over much... You mention the soul...What we call soul the Greeks called Anima, but what we think of as animation we very often do think of as the soul... Or as Reasen de Etre, purpose, though I would just say reason... The fact is, the true spiritual world we deal in is full of moral realities, which we think of as essential to our well being, including forms like virtue, liberty, or justice... I very much deal with these spiritual realities, and beyond that, of infinites, like God, or eternity, or existence; I give very little time or effort... It is because the essentials of meaning are lacking...I can give these infinites some meaning, but not being....I can share my meaning out of my life with infinites, but that is putting my own finger on the scale of reason because, in fact, I can know no more of infinites than what I can know of reality around me.

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

I think about everything, and care over much... You mention the soul...What we call soul the Greeks called Anima, but what we think of as animation we very often do think of as the soul... Or as Reasen de Etre, purpose, though I would just say reason... The fact is, the true spiritual world we deal in is full of moral realities, which we think of as essential to our well being, including forms like virtue, liberty, or justice... I very much deal with these spiritual realities, and beyond that, of infinites, like God, or eternity, or existence; I give very little time or effort... It is because the essentials of meaning are lacking...I can give these infinites some meaning, but not being....I can share my meaning out of my life with infinites, but that is putting my own finger on the scale of reason because, in fact, I can know no more of infinites than what I can know of reality around me.

Fido, your style seems a bit turgid to me. That's not a criticism, per se, and I'll do my best to get used to it. I'm just giving you fair warning that I'm having to translate everything you say, so my interpretations may be off. You'll need to clarify if I miss the mark.

I'll take your answer to my question as "yes". So, at least with respect to God, you don't give it much thought. Your reason seems to be the old standby that because God is infinite, we can't know him. As I've said before, I consider that a misconstrual of what infinity is. That can be one aspect we discuss ...

or we can discuss your mention of "forms". There I would also disagree with your assertion that these are "moral realities" (in the sense that "virtue" exists as a form). But, if you say that forms are realties, what explains the difference in people's approach to virtue, liberty, justice, etc.?

1 Reply

@Resha Caner,

Resha Caner wrote:

...Given that you believe the spiritual exists, and given that not everyone agrees on what the spiritual is, how do you explain these differences?

The definition of spiritual is has seven sub-definitions; each referring to other concepts. Each of those, cross referenced, have multiple definitions. With such a large playing field, could you clarify what you mean by believing, "... the spiritual exists" a little more specifically?

Thanks

1 Reply

@Khethil,

I didn't realize the number of definitions could be limited to 7. That's a curious statement by itself. But, I intentionally made a broad statement about spirituality. I didn't want to be accused of excluding anyone, because, broad as my statement was, my impression is that only a narrow slice of those here assembled believe in anything spiritual.

At this point, all I meant by it was a belief that something non-physical exists.

But maybe here we come to our first impass. What does it matter how we define the spiritual? Whether there are 7 or 77 divisions? If it exists, it is what it is regardless of how we define it.

2 Replies

@Resha Caner,

[

Quote:

quote=Resha Caner;57918]Fido, your style seems a bit turgid to me. That's not a criticism, per se, and I'll do my best to get used to it. I'm just giving you fair warning that I'm having to translate everything you say, so my interpretations may be off. You'll need to clarify if I miss the mark.

I'll take your answer to my question as "yes". So, at least with respect to God, you don't give it much thought. Your reason seems to be the old standby that because God is infinite, we can't know him. As I've said before, I consider that a misconstrual of what infinity is. That can be one aspect we discuss ...

About right...Though I give a lot of thought to God, at least the God I was raised to, and have a large library of theology, and even try to learn enough Greek to read the New testament in the Greek, which I also have a copy of, and I read constantly on the subject, even of Islam, the Holy Q'uran of which I have two copies, one anotated...But it is all no more than reading fantasy...I read it to fairly compare the behavior of those who say they believe with their behavior...I do it for a lesson in Morality, since if Christianity is a community, within that community there should be moral behavior...

Quote:

or we can discuss your mention of "forms". There I would also disagree with your assertion that these are "moral realities" (in the sense that "virtue" exists as a form). But, if you say that forms are realties, what explains the difference in people's approach to virtue, liberty, justice, etc.?

[/quote]
Just like God, virtue has as much reality as people give it...The problem with moral forms is exactly the problem that exists with God, since we cannot produce the thing, but feel we cannot live without it, how can we show its existence, and find the amount of the moral form people must have in their lives for their best health and survival... People who deal in physics have it easy by comparison... Moralists have their work cut out for them; even while a child could lift a yard of justice with his finger...

2 Replies

@Resha Caner,

Resha Caner wrote:

I didn't realize the number of definitions could be limited to 7. That's a curious statement by itself.

Curious? Then allow me to introduce you to a friend of mine; the Dictionary (you can find one here). There is no need for an adversarialism here Resha; I'm enjoining you on this discussion - not refuting.

Resha Caner wrote:

But, I intentionally made a broad statement about spirituality. I didn't want to be accused of excluding anyone, because, broad as my statement was, my impression is that only a narrow slice of those here assembled believe in anything spiritual.

I understand; and I think that's an inclusive and worthy intent. The only problem is that as we discuss matters of spirituality there inevitably comes a point where a light goes on somewhere - inside someone's head - and we realize we're all talking about something slightly different.

I don't want, nor was it my intent, to muddle your question. I think that (as it applies to any 'flavor' of spirituality) its a find discussion to have. I only ask for clarification to avoid multiple directions. Referring back to your 'curious' wonder at there being different definitions of spirituality, take this for instance.

Spirituality can, in one sense, be said that which refers to 'relating to the spirit'
Spirit, also carries a sub definition of "relating to the intelligent or sentient part of a person"
So I might respond to your question from the purely intelligence aspect

I might also refer to ghosts, religion, any imagined supernatural being and so on. With so much variance, I don't think to ask for a little clarification is so strange. I see you've been with us a while, can you imagine how many different directions we might talk in - all at once?

Resha Caner wrote:

But maybe here we come to our first impass. What does it matter how we define the spiritual? Whether there are 7 or 77 divisions? If it exists, it is what it is regardless of how we define it.

Without common understanding about what we're talking about, conversation is confused at best and intellectually-torturous at worst. So I guess my answer would be: Yes, it does matter - but only if we want to have anything akin to a coherent discussion.

Thanks

1 Reply

@Resha Caner,

The Physicalist connundrum itself is an issue of belief. The Issue being that they opertate from an axiom that states something like "all things knowable can be witnessed materially" Its a faith in materialism. If everything came down to a grand physical equation the reason why people would still be fighting about it is that all the equation proves is that given the axiom of materialism the equation is inherently logically sound. The schism would not prove that there is a physically illogical brain process, because the schism would be more of the same. "my belief is a logical extension of (X) axiom".
So i would not say that people are having an inssue of not believing, I would say that since the enlightenment the axioms for belief have become more materialistically practical. By this rational I have reconciled my own belief in the "spiritual" and "transmental" with that of the physicalists. Its faulty and seemingly hypocritical to some I'm sure but it works for me.

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

I see your point, Gosh, and it has some merit. My summary of what you said would be: people see it differently because they start from different assumptions - including physicalism. While valid, I find that a bit trite. I don't mean to insult you, but I'd like to dig deeper.

---------- Post added at 02:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:35 PM ----------

I wasn't trying to offend you, Khethil. Since it seems I did, I apologize. I realize definitions differ, and it is perfectly acceptable for you to ask for clarification.

Had you said, "there are many different definitions" I wouldn't have given it a second thought. But to lock in on a specific number - there are seven definitions made me laugh. Sorry for thinking it funny. Let's move on.

Khethil wrote:

I understand; and I think that's an inclusive and worthy intent. The only problem is that as we discuss matters of spirituality there inevitably comes a point where a light goes on somewhere - inside someone's head - and we realize we're all talking about something slightly different.

Exactly. So why is that? If we were all sitting around my desk staring at a pencil, I think we'd agree it was a pencil (though there is always the anal guy who insists it's a stick of wood with a piece of lead in the middle - which is followed by the guy who insists it is a collection of atoms - which is followed by ...) Assuming we're all making an honest effort to describe the same thing, why do we come to different conclusions?

At first the answer seems trivial. Maybe it is. But maybe not.

You are asking for clarification. I'm not sure I can do justice to your request if we stay with the general word "spiritual", so maybe I need to do some excluding afterall. I think it would work better to choose between the dichotomy suggested by Fido - focusing either on moral "forms" or spiritual beings. I guess I would prefer the latter.

0 Replies

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

...Just like God, virtue has as much reality as people give it...

Fido,
What do you mean by that?
If you mean God and virtue are just subjective concepts or ideas I can't agree.
But if you mean people give virtue reality, when a person does a good act that person makes that virtue that comes from God a reality in the world.
Then I agree, I think that is a good way of looking at it.

Virtues - practice the ones you want to keep.

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Just like God, virtue has as much reality as people give it...The problem with moral forms is exactly the problem that exists with God, since we cannot produce the thing ...

It is these glib assumptions that I don't understand. It's these that I'm trying to get at and discuss, not pass them by in order to make a point further down the road.

It seems to me you are assuming my knowledge of God is self-induced - or at least a misinterpreted response to something metaphysical. I would further assume this happens because you have no experience to compare it to. In that regard, I would point you to L.W. Sleeth's thread: http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/philosophy-religion/3631-god-part-1-anti-god-reasoning-blunders.html#post48730

It seems a rather simple matter to me. Just as I can't produce God for your perusal, neither can I produce Secretary LaHood on command. That has no bearing on the existence of either. You have other sources for LaHood's existence, sources you trust (which is interesting, because I have actually met LaHood and can offer personal testimony that he exists. Still, I expect you to trust other sources rather than me). But not everyone in the world has those sources. You might have difficulty explaining LaHood to a native of the South American rainforest for the same reasons - trust. I could conclude, thereby, that you do not consider my testimony trustworthy.

Why? That's not intended to incite an argument. I'm trying to dig at the roots of what supports our assumptions. I am assuming they are more than random.

2 Replies

@neapolitan,

neapolitan wrote:

Fido,
What do you mean by that?
If you mean God and virtue are just subjective concepts or ideas I can't agree.
But if you mean people give virtue reality, when a person does a good act that person makes that virtue that comes from God a reality in the world.
Then I agree, I think that is a good way of looking at it.

Virtues - practice the ones you want to keep.

You can't show me an ounce of God or an ounce of virtue...You might be able to show the results of these notions in people lives because they give people a certain meaning... But that is their sole reality... People find them essential...I believe the want of Justice kills...I believe the want of virtue kills, but if the only way we can prove virtue or justice is to deny them to others to the point of their deaths, then they are not alone denied justice and virtue...

0 Replies

@Resha Caner,

Resha Caner wrote:

It is these glib assumptions that I don't understand. It's these that I'm trying to get at and discuss, not pass them by in order to make a point further down the road.

He's correct. Both concepts he gives 'god' and 'virtue' - just like what I was trying to illustrate to you with regards to 'spirituality - are subjective concepts. They mean different things to different people; this is very, very hard to deny. From this it follows that, as Fido said, they have, "...only as much reality as people give [them]..." I'm perplexed as to how it is you don't see this.

Resha Caner wrote:

In that regard, I would point you to L.W. Sleeth's thread: http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/philosophy-religion/3631-god-part-1-anti-god-reasoning-blunders.html#post48730...

Which is a thread flawed from its opening sentence by saying...

LWSleeth wrote:

... seven major reasoning flaws atheists and agnostics often make in reasoning against the possibility of God.

... revealing how little he/she knows about atheism or agnosticism. For those who haven't looked, atheists don't deny the possibility - they just don't believe. Agnostics don't deny the possibility, they just don't claim to know. This is a popular misconception; that if one doesn't believe, then they must deny the possibility. Its yet another example of two-dimensional thinking. Among people, theology systems are complex and shaded - not "there must be" -or- "there isn't" black and white.

And I'm still wondering how it is you believe we can have a coherent discussion about spirituality; which I've already shown can have many different meanings, without you defining the specific context you're addressing. Keeping it 'general', as you suggested earlier leads to confusion and missed meanings.

I'm here's to hoping there's still some worth to staying engaged with this thread. Thanks

2 Replies

@Resha Caner,

Resha Caner wrote:

It is these glib assumptions that I don't understand. It's these that I'm trying to get at and discuss, not pass them by in order to make a point further down the road.

It seems to me you are assuming my knowledge of God is self-induced - or at least a misinterpreted response to something metaphysical. I would further assume this happens because you have no experience to compare it to. In that regard, I would point you to L.W. Sleeth's thread: http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/philosophy-religion/3631-god-part-1-anti-god-reasoning-blunders.html#post48730

It seems a rather simple matter to me. Just as I can't produce God for your perusal, neither can I produce Secretary LaHood on command. That has no bearing on the existence of either. You have other sources for LaHood's existence, sources you trust (which is interesting, because I have actually met LaHood and can offer personal testimony that he exists. Still, I expect you to trust other sources rather than me). But not everyone in the world has those sources. You might have difficulty explaining LaHood to a native of the South American rainforest for the same reasons - trust. I could conclude, thereby, that you do not consider my testimony trustworthy.

Why? That's not intended to incite an argument. I'm trying to dig at the roots of what supports our assumptions. I am assuming they are more than random.

So testify to God...If trust is God is only trust in other people it shares every fault with every other sort of knowledge with none of the advantages...And, I trust the object in life is not to prove the existence of God or Mr. Lahood, but to prove our own existence today, by being here tomorrow... That is the object of our forms, and even of the form called God...Does God as a form add anything to our lives, or add to the prospect of our further existence...

Those who believe in God are the biggest muscle heads on the planet, and yet they intrude into every rational argument made out of necessity by rational people, such as the process of government, which really does not address any deep theological questions, but only how does government reach well established goals...Churches interfere with government for which they deny support and responsibility...It has always been true that those who propose the existence of God are doing so for their own power, for their own earthly authority...As a form, God has been often taken over and turned to the devils work, and since God, if God exists does not speak up, the devils work goes on without interruption..It is all about power, even for those who actually accepted God as a reality, it was all about power, using God, bribing God with burnt offerings, turning God to the purpose of man, turning God against ones enemies..God is never justified by man, but man always uses God to justify what ever they want to do...Look at the behavior of the jews in the exodus..Did they kill Moses, or kill the people of Moses' wife???.Look at the genocide in the promised land...Where are the philistines, or the cannanites...They say an eye for an eye, but even today against their enemies they try to kill ten to one, or a hundred to one if they can, just like the Nazis... But it is all justified...All we do is justified by God, and for that reason the Catholics never taught the Bible...It is a giant can of worms in which all bad behavior find precidence...

0 Replies

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

I'm still wondering how it is you believe we can have a coherent discussion about spirituality ... without you defining the specific context

I don't understand your combativeness. You keep doing this to me, where it seems you're trying to pick a fight where there is none. In a previous post I said how I hoped to be inclusive, but you were probably right in that a general discussion will be too difficult. I then took a small step toward that definition by specifying that we talk about "God" rather than "moral forms". What exactly am I refusing to do?

Khethil wrote:

here's to hoping there's still some worth to staying engaged

Based on the preceding, it's hard to believe you mean this. Because, though you say I haven't defined anything, you quickly jump to dismissing what I haven't defined.

Khethil wrote:

He's correct. Both concepts he gives 'god' and 'virtue' ... are subjective concepts....From this it follows that, as Fido said, they have, "...only as much reality as people give ... I'm perplexed as to how it is you don't see this.

What happens, then, is that this devolves into a debate over the meaning of language. That's not what I wanted. I stated from the beginning that I wanted to hear from those who actually believe in something spiritual. You haven't told me yet if you do. Do you? If so, what?

I was willing to listen to whatever spiritual entity one wanted to discuss, but you are right that that would probably become too fractious. So, I've picked God as the topic.

With that said, I would expect atheists and agnostics aren't interested anymore.

Khethil wrote:

For those who haven't looked, atheists don't deny the possibility - they just don't believe. Agnostics don't deny the possibility, they just don't claim to know. This is a popular misconception; that if one doesn't believe, then they must deny the possibility. Its yet another example of two-dimensional thinking. Among people, theology systems are complex and shaded - not "there must be" -or- "there isn't" black and white.

But, with that said, this was a constructive contribution (aside from jumping to conclusions about what I think of atheists and agnostics. I wish you'd leave that part out.)

Though your comments are true in general, atheists with a passive approach rarely end up in conversations like this. My personal experience is with those who make absolutist claims that God does not exist. In that regard, LW makes some very valid points.

So, let me try again to emphasize what I'm after here. You say "God" means different things to different people. Exactly. My question is "why?" Language is an issue, and simple misunderstanding is an issue. But suppose two people make an honest, calm attempt to overcome language and misunderstanding. Suppose they are after the "truth" about the "thing in itself". Why do they continue to disagree?

One answer might be: because God doesn't exist (or, because "God" is only as real as people make him). Yeah, OK. But I'd rather hear from the people who think God exists. IMO that subjective answer means one doesn't really believe in God. I don't hear many people saying, "A pencil can be whatever you want it to be. It only writes if you believe it will write." Let me say this. Christianity has an answer to this question, but I was curious how other faiths answer it - unless all those answers can be summarized with the foregoing subjectivism. That would be disappointing.

---------- Post added at 08:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:15 AM ----------

Fido wrote:

So testify to God...If trust is God is only trust in other people it shares every fault with every other sort of knowledge with none of the advantages...And, I trust the object in life is not to prove the existence of God or Mr. Lahood, but to prove our own existence today, by being here tomorrow... That is the object of our forms, and even of the form called God...Does God as a form add anything to our lives, or add to the prospect of our further existence...

I could ... actually I think I do ... but I don't get the feeling you'd accept that testimony based on what you've said here.

Even so, God is more than my testimony. He can speak to you directly, or act directly in your life in irrefutable ways if he so chooses. Taking the pharoh of Exodus as an example, however, there is always a way to deny what happens if you look hard enough.

But I'm going to refrain from attacking your approach to God as a form because that's not what I'm after. Instead, let's do this. Let's take your approach, allowing each person to define "virtue" as fits their need. Why do they need to define it differently?

Fido wrote:

Those who believe in God are the biggest muscle heads on the planet, and yet they intrude into every rational argument made out of necessity by rational people, such as the process of government, which really does not address any deep theological questions, but only how does government reach well established goals...Churches interfere with government for which they deny support and responsibility...It has always been true that those who propose the existence of God are doing so for their own power, for their own earthly authority...As a form, God has been often taken over and turned to the devils work, and since God, if God exists does not speak up, the devils work goes on without interruption..It is all about power, even for those who actually accepted God as a reality, it was all about power, using God, bribing God with burnt offerings, turning God to the purpose of man, turning God against ones enemies..God is never justified by man, but man always uses God to justify what ever they want to do...Look at the behavior of the jews in the exodus..Did they kill Moses, or kill the people of Moses' wife???.Look at the genocide in the promised land...Where are the philistines, or the cannanites...They say an eye for an eye, but even today against their enemies they try to kill ten to one, or a hundred to one if they can, just like the Nazis... But it is all justified...All we do is justified by God, and for that reason the Catholics never taught the Bible...It is a giant can of worms in which all bad behavior find precidence...

And, Fido, this tirade was simply not helpful. If you actually set out to defend what you've said, you'll find it very prejudiced and unjustified since atheistic nations (such as the USSR) have been just as brutal and oppressive. You can try to play to the extremes as if they are the norm, but they aren't. The true problem exists in all people, not in a single institution like a church.

But what would you do? Would you ban churches? Would you deny me - someone who happens to belong to a church - the right to express my opinion, to vote, to support those government officials who agree with me, to band together with others of similar thought and lobby? Am I supposed to be quiet so you can have your way? Am I supposed to pretend I don't believe what I believe?

2 Replies

@Khethil,

Quote:

I don't understand your combativeness. You keep doing this to me, where it seems you're trying to pick a fight where there is none. In a previous post I said how I hoped to be inclusive, but you were probably right in that a general discussion will be too difficult. I then took a small step toward that definition by specifying that we talk about "God" rather than "moral forms". What exactly am I refusing to do?

Let me throw some simplified conversational analysis into this to answer this question. I am going to appeal to authority so to paraphrase ( I don't mean to offend you but...)

Quote:

This is a very narrow question (at least as I ask it). Hence, I understand that it will be difficult to get a serious answer, but I thought I'd give it a try.

In the first post a aura of combativness is expressed through the supposed disbelief in the forum's general ability to take you seriously. This expresses several emotions in text. 1) Superiority: Obviously the writer, heretofore referred to as W1, thinks that people do will not understan the "elevated" level of thinking. 2) Pearls Before Swine: it also implies that W1 is casting her pearl out there. 3) Condescention: ho hum W1 is gonna make a good faith effort eventhough its pointless.

Quote:

Fido, your style seems a bit turgid to me. That's not a criticism, per se, and I'll do my best to get used to it. I'm just giving you fair warning that I'm having to translate everything you say, so my interpretations may be off. You'll need to clarify if I miss the mark.

Superfluous Style critique is pointless and only serves derisive purposes, retractining with a per se cements the superiority attitude a reader would assume that W1 is portraying. "I'll do my best to understand it, is classic pedantic verbiage, as if W1 is writing to a 3 year old barely learning how to communicate.

Quote:

That sounds poetic, but I'm not sure what it means. Do you mean, "Never thought about it and don't really care"?

Poetic but: is a not so subtle insult to (Fido's) critical thinking skills
Really don't care: Is a full on dissmisal of it. This is especially true considering this quote.

Quote:

It is these glib assumptions that I don't understand. It's these that I'm trying to get at and discuss, not pass them by in order to make a point further down the road.

It is one thing to say you don't understand and ask for a restatement, it is another to say that someone is being glib. Then reversing it to then say you are trying to discuss them further without actually doing so is disingenuous. Most often a maxim or proverbial statement is said as such because it is "truth" in its simplest form.

Quote:

I didn't realize the number of definitions could be limited to 7. That's a curious statement by itself.

and

Quote:

Had you said, "there are many different definitions" I wouldn't have given it a second thought. But to lock in on a specific number - there are seven definitions made me laugh. Sorry for thinking it funny. Let's move on.

Appoligizing for the text equivalent of derisive giggling is an overt attempt at belittling a person's post. If W1 were trying not to be combative there is no need to express laughability in text, it could be done and then a more respectful post written that addresses the disagreement. This also flies directly in the face of the ambiguous statement

Quote:

This is a very narrow question (at least as I ask it).

There are several vascilliations betwee narrow and broad in W1's posts. This only shows that a legitimate discussion open to the forum is not W1's intention. It is a rather clumsy attempt to direct the conversation in what most readers can only expect to be W1's already firm opinions on the thread subject. This is also confirmed by outright dismissals of opinion followed by, pleas to either go deeper or in another direction, like the following.

Quote:

I find that a bit trite. I don't mean to insult you, but I'd like to dig deeper.

Quote:

. I stated from the beginning that I wanted to hear from those who actually believe in something spiritual.

posts like these excluding forum members are combative and IMO somewhat ignorant. Being that this is an open forum excluding members from a conversation already shows that W1 has a closed agenda.

Posts like the following set W1 up as again the pedantic teacher, not the open debater.

Quote:

It seems a rather simple matter to me.

Quote:

I'll take your answer to my question as "yes".

both followed with a consdecending explanation of why its simple or why W1 will distill a complex answer to a Yes/No.

Posts like the following is an attempt to cover up condescention by setting oneself up as a martyr to the cause of teaching the truth despite other's ignorance.

Quote:

I could conclude, thereby, that you do not consider my testimony trustworthy.

Quote:

I wasn't trying to offend you

Quote:

Why? That's not intended to incite an argument. I'm trying to dig at the roots of what supports our assumptions. I am assuming they are more than random.

And Finally this actually cracks me up

Quote:

Since it seems I did, I apologize.

throwing doubt on an already insincere appology, too funny.

Anyway I understand that this has nothing to do with the thread subject itself, however skilled debaters such as many of the posters in this forum replying to you understand when they are being led down the primbrose path, and yet they are still polite and follow the rules of etiquette. I hope this answered your question to Khethil.

Cheers,
Russ

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

I'll accept some of your criticisms, Gosh. It is hard not to attempt to "prove" one's opinion, and I admit I found myself going that direction a few times in this thread.

In the case of Fido I circled back to reword my responses several times when I realized I was being unfair. I didn't intend to sound condescending. I truly was having trouble understanding what he was getting at. As to who is superior to whom, the thought never occurred to me. I was surprised when his response turned abrasive, but if he was interpreting me the way you are, that would explain it.

Khethil is a different matter. I find his style insulting. He has valid points to make, but laces those replies with condescension of his own. Shall I point them out to you? So, I know my replies to him are less than friendly. He's done this to me several times, where he drops into the middle of a conversation deux ex machina. I don't respond well to that, hard as I might try.

I've tried several different approaches in Internet forums. I've tried posing the question with no explanation. Then I get accused of information hiding or poor definitions. I've tried supporting it with extensive information. Then I'm accused of equivocating, creating straw men, or laying traps. I've tried ignoring what I think is only a digression to my intended topic, and then I'm accused of avoiding important issues. This time I probably started out being defensive, asking only those who actually believe in the spiritual to participate, and I'm accused of being pompous and condescending.

To be honest, I think those who disagree are going to attack in ways that are beside the point regardless of how I approach things. But I'll take your criticisms, see if I can adjust, and muddle on. What I'm not going to do is crumble when people attack.

So, if anyone is interested in continuing ...

0 Replies

Why Don't People Believe?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know