• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Reasons we can't have good conversations.

Maybe a bit less so here, but very often it seems to me that posters are so loyal to a political party that they don't see that when one party advocates something they are for it and when the other advocates the same thing they are against it.
 
csbrown28 said:
While I think your right, I think there is more to it. I'm of the opinion that many people make decisions based on their feelings and intuition rather than a formalized process of logic based reasoning. This leads to decisions made without proper justification and ideas that cannot be justified in their own minds in concrete terms must be defended on emotional terms. When another person questions a person belief, they person being questioned, cannot separate their idea from themselves as a person.

So as you said, the difficulty is admitting they are wrong, but more precisely they have difficulty admitting they are wrong because it harms their own self-esteem. The classic response is to create a wall of cognitive dissonance rather than face the pain of admitting an idea that has been internalized is wrong.
Click to expand...

True sometimes it is more than just pride.
I wasn't sure exactly how to phrase it but I think you did a good job.
I would call it someone's ideology, be it religious, political, philosophical or whatever, If that is challenged it is very, very difficult to accept any contrary point as it deals with the possibility that a persons entire world outlook and thus their "self" being challenged. That Is much more than just pride that is ones sense of self. However sometimes it is just pride.
 
29A said:
While meditating on why we can't come to agreement on various issues of debate, I identified 3 major reasons.

1. ) False characterizations - occurs in efforts to simplify the complex.

2. ) The re-definition of words - often an effort to force reality into one's worldview.

3. ) Denying the obvious - often in an effort to support one's premise.

Feel free to add to the list.


False characterizations.

Examples:

1.) The Seventh Circuit characterized Supreme Court rulings as equating atheism with religion.
What the Seventh Circuit claimed:
“The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545U.S. 844, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 162 L.Ed.2d 729 (2005).   "
KAUFMAN v. McCAUGHTRY - FindLaw

What the Supreme Court in fact said:
“With respect to public acknowledgment of religious belief, it is entirely clear from our Nation’s historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists. "
MCCREARY COUNTY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIESUNION OF KY.


2.) August 11, 2014, Rush Limbaugh wrongly characterizes a New York Times article saying, " Well, the New York Times ran a story a little over a month ago that says the Iraqis did indeed promise immunity; Obama rejected it. "
Obama's Boldfaced Lie: It Wasn't My Idea to Leave Iraq - The Rush Limbaugh Show

The New York Times article Limbaugh’s site linked to, on the other hand, notes that it was only an offer by Maliki, and that to be constitutional, it would need to be approved by the Iraqi Parliament, an event which was not likely.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/w...-troops-get-immunity-from-iraqi-law.html?_r=0

The re-definition of words.

Examples.

1.) Besides the Seventh's characterization, it is often asserted by the religious that atheism is a religion. Good, then point to the applicable definition.

2.) The right often simply calls the PPACA [Obamacare] socialism, without qualification. Given that it provides subsidies, it is socialistic, but to call it socialism without qualification is false.

3.) To defend the Biblical God, the religious re-define the word die. To die refers to a physical death, if spiritual death would have been meant, the Biblical text should have so specified.

Denying the obvious.

1.) The tree of knowledge of good and evil was forbidden by God. Exegetically, all knowledge was forbidden. There's no other way to take it.
Click to expand...
az

It's a good summary. My breakdown is this. I only friend someone on here if I actually can have a good conversation with them. It's not just both of us agreeing or disagreeing on everything. If I see someone who actually holds a lot of my viewpoints, which is rare in of itself. I will automatically friend them. Full Disclosure: That has only happened ONCE on this site!

I end a conversation in a number of ways. I just stop posting, If I see that the partisan hacks are getting nowhere or are just going around in the same circles that I've heard a thousand times. Are on completely different planes of existence than I am creating their own false realities of what the constitution says or who people in power are and you have touched a lot on that. I also like to just crack jokes every once in awhile but sometimes people get mad at me for that if they wanted to have a serious conversation. In that case, for my threads, I try my best to steer the topic in a direction I want it to go. I also always try to be as clear and concise as possible and am careful not to use any partisan talking points. I always try to bring something new and fresh to the table. Usually from my own mind and I try to back it up with statistics and data. Since the word "facts" is now sadly it's own political slogan.
 
29A said:
"Show that atheism MUST describe a religion. "
"You're asking me to show that "green" describes a color. "

It is you [and some others] who dispute the commonly accepted definition of the word atheism, to then imply that the definition for the word green is unknowable or up for dispute - is the false equivalency. We have to have universally agreed upon definitions, else how are we supposed to effectively communicate?
Click to expand...

we often have extreme difficulty communicating, I frankly think that is why we can't have good conversation. Or why it is so difficult.

Think about it this way, discussing philosophy with somebody that has a relatively open mind (meaning they understand they are indeed biased but have the ability to recognize that they are, and about what) seems to be almost exciting, even if you don't agree with each other.
But what is most important in that is communication.

We all send and receive messages differently.

wear green can represent a color I can also represent an emotion a feeling character trait a political ideal money or food. yes the word Green has many definitions some of them aren't even in the dictionary so it's worthwhile to explain if you want to be properly understood it's also difficult on a forum where everyone communicates with the typed word. you can't use inflection, you can't see facial expressions and so forth.

often times people come into these conversations with chips on the shoulder. their communication is very clear.

but I would say more than anything it is communication, just my two cents
 
Other things I experience:

-people attributing beliefs and political/philosophical positions to me that I do not hold.
-people putting words in my mouth.
 
29A said:
"Show that atheism MUST describe a religion. "
"You're asking me to show that "green" describes a color. "

It is you [and some others] who dispute the commonly accepted definition of the word atheism, to then imply that the definition for the word green is unknowable or up for dispute - is the false equivalency. We have to have universally agreed upon definitions, else how are we supposed to effectively communicate?
Click to expand...
The definition for 'green' is knowable and not in dispute, and neither is the word 'atheist'. We have a universal definition of 'atheist', all you have to do is look it up. The definition does not regard a religious position in any way, which means calling yourself an atheist does not mean you have no religion.

We have a word for people who have no belief in any deity AND no religion, 'agnostic', and so if you don't take 'agnostic' that means you leave the door open for either god worship and/or a religious view.

Just saying you're an atheist begs the question "an atheist what".
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
The definition for 'green' is knowable and not in dispute, and neither is the word 'atheist'. We have a universal definition of 'atheist', all you have to do is look it up. The definition does not regard a religious position in any way, which means calling yourself an atheist does not mean you have no religion.

We have a word for people who have no belief in any deity AND no religion, 'agnostic', and so if you don't take 'agnostic' that means you leave the door open for either god worship and/or a religious view.

Just saying you're an atheist begs the question "an atheist what".
Click to expand...

I thought agnostic was you believe something might be there but didnt know what.
 
Jerry said:
The definition for 'green' is knowable and not in dispute, and neither is the word 'atheist'. We have a universal definition of 'atheist', all you have to do is look it up. The definition does not regard a religious position in any way, which means calling yourself an atheist does not mean you have no religion.
Click to expand...

It sure as hell doesn't preclude religious fervor, though.
 
There are other factors that the OP has not considered.

When it comes to internet debates and public commentary online in general, there are thousands of paid corporate shills whose single purpose is to enter forums and spread counter propaganda. Pharmaceutical industries do it all the time (I believe PBS had a documentary on this practice about 5 years ago), in order to thwart their competition in alternative industries. Governments do it too... the Chinese government has paid shills who visit our news websites, and whenever an article talks bad of China a pro-Chinese commentator inevitably steps in.

Another reason is that, as a rule, people are generally more stupid nowadays than they were decades ago. They may possess knowledge of more information but critical thinking skills and flexible minds are severely lacking due to the way the education system has shifted toward standard testing models. Gradually, people have been raised to think less and less for themselves. "Education" is about repeating back information, not responding critically. Most universities are this way too now, at least at the undergrad level.

And probably the most important reason is that our government and its media conglomerates (all staffed by corporate owners or their cronies) have worked overtime to keep the population ignorant and rigidly divided into camps so that they'll never come together and attack the real enemy. They offer the public a small spectrum of information, confining the true story to a pale shadow of what it actually is, and then get the public to have polarized debates within that tiny mental prison while making people think they're really informed. It's genius, and it's also pure evil on this republic.
 
WCH said:
I personally have gotten into long winded conversion and taken much grief. Then there are times where I don't say enough and get grief for that also.
Can't win around here.
Click to expand...

Or out there? :)
 
csbrown28 said:
The classic response is to create a wall of cognitive dissonance rather than face the pain of admitting an idea that has been internalized is wrong.
Click to expand...

Well cognitive dissonance is painful. Further whether to admit that the internalized belief is wrong or not may also have to do with cognitive dissonance.

Lastly, what usually happens is people stop replying to you at all rather then get into dissonance and the trouble of changing positions therein.
 
29A said:
We have to have universally agreed upon definitions, else how are we supposed to effectively communicate?
Click to expand...

I believe that agreeing on definitions of words may be followed until agreeing to do so serves one's purposes. When it no longer serves one's purposes, or worse, as long as agreeing to use agreed upon definitions would harm one, then one solution is to use vagueness instead. Why agree on using agreed upon definitions if doing so may harm one?

Nothing new here, this may always been the case. Nearly all leaders use it also.
 
Logicman said:
Whereas Genesis 1:26 states that God was to create man in His own image and likeness, Genesis 1:27 shows that man was only created in God’s “image.” It wasn’t until Genesis 3:22 when Adam ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that he became “like” God.

To Summarize:

1. Man was to be created in the likeness and image of God (Genesis 1:26).

2. Part of this “likeness” was a knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:22)

3. For Adam to be truly “like” God, he had to acquire a knowledge of evil.

4. The means to that end was eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

5. To do that a “tempter” was likely needed to entice Adam into sin.

6. God provided, or allowed, Satan as the tempter.

7. God knew in advance what the outcome would be, but allowed it anyway.

8. God knew atonement would be required, and provided Jesus Christ as the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the earth” (Revelation 13:8).

9. Man achieves the likeness of God, acquires a knowledge of and overcomes evil, partakes of Christ, and is reunited in paradise with God. Man is now an overcomer with a keen knowledge of evil.

The key to all this remains, “Is acquiring a knowledge of good and evil a prerequisite to coming into the likeness and image of God? If the answer is yes, I think Adam has to eat from that tree, and God has to make it happen. If the answer is no, then I think you have to look back to Genesis 3:22 and reconcile that with Genesis 1:26, explaining how Adam is “like” God, but at the same time lacks a knowledge of good and evil. Also, how does man acquire that knowledge without eating of the fruit of that tree?

- The Righter Report (The Righter Report)

"Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God." - Revelation 2

"Who is it that overcomes the world? Only the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God." - 1 John 5:5

Jesus is Lord!
Click to expand...

No he is not.

Jesus is a smart politician (if he lived at all) that found a weakness in his followers that consists of the tendency to believe fairy tale BS just like prescribed above. The religious have been capitalizing on this idiocy since then.
 
DDD said:
No he is not.

Jesus is a smart politician (if he lived at all) that found a weakness in his followers that consists of the tendency to believe fairy tale BS just like prescribed above. The religious have been capitalizing on this idiocy since then.
Click to expand...

You Christ-deniers love your THEORIES, don't you? But never do you have any facts to back them up. Just heave that cr*p against the wall and see if it sticks. LOL!
 
Logicman said:
You Christ-deniers love your THEORIES, don't you? But never do you have any facts to back them up. Just heave that cr*p against the wall and see if it sticks. LOL!
Click to expand...

To the contrary.

I consistently ask actual empirical evidence to support thee most basic concepts of proposed theological theory. Concepts such as whether "God" even exist are in question and repeatedly evidence to support such claim lack.

What usually happens is fairy tales and ancient no longer supported anecdotal evidence is provided. Those though cannot replace the required actual empirical evidence that shows the existence of God.

Those I still await.
 
DDD said:
To the contrary.

I consistently ask actual empirical evidence to support thee most basic concepts of proposed theological theory. Concepts such as whether "God" even exist are in question and repeatedly evidence to support such claim lack.

What usually happens is fairy tales and ancient no longer supported anecdotal evidence is provided. Those though cannot replace the required actual empirical evidence that shows the existence of God.

Those I still await.
Click to expand...

And you will continue to wait because Christians, especially the most vocal Christians, have no answers. They just keep making excuses for why they have been such total failures in justifying their theology.
 
DDD said:
To the contrary.

I consistently ask actual empirical evidence to support thee most basic concepts of proposed theological theory. Concepts such as whether "God" even exist are in question and repeatedly evidence to support such claim lack.
Click to expand...

Where's the empirical evidence to back up your claim that the followers of Jesus were weak-minded individuals who had a tendency to believe "fairy tale bs"?
 
Cephus said:
And you will continue to wait because Christians, especially the most vocal Christians, have no answers. They just keep making excuses for why they have been such total failures in justifying their theology.
Click to expand...

That's just more knee-jerk nonsense from left field.
 
The other frustrating part is the refusal to answer a question;

Q; What do think the effects of x will be?

Answer; See this link, this link, this link.

Q; No, what do you think the effects will be?

A; I've told you.

Q; No, you have give me links to things with different numbers and which are not really about x at all. I want to know what you think.

A; I've posted my evidence.

Q; What do you think the effect of x will be?

A; You don't understand science.

Q; I think I've got a decent understanding. What is your understand of the effects of x?

and onward and onward it goes.
..............

See any of the debates in the environment section and the trying to get anything out of the alarmists.
 
Logicman said:
That's just more knee-jerk nonsense from left field.
Click to expand...

Considering I'm addressing you and your abysmal failures, I'm not surprised you try to do exactly what I said, try to make excuses for why you fail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom