Reasons we can't have good conversations.

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.

I would add Preconceived Worldviews to that list. Many posters base their political affiliation on a worldview they've held for most or all of their life. They refuse to open their mind and think of other possibilities because that would collapse their most deeply held belief structures.

How about a general misunderstanding of what constitutes reasonable evidence used to support a position?

csbrown28 said:

How about a general misunderstanding of what constitutes reasonable evidence used to support a position?

Click to expand...

Tell me about it.
Better yet.
Go to the conspiracy forums and try to explain the concept of "reasonable evidence" .
Good luck.

radioman said:

Tell me about it.
Better yet.
Go to the conspiracy forums and try to explain the concept of "reasonable evidence" .
Good luck.

Click to expand...

Conspiracy forums is just slang for "I'm incapable of understanding the concept of evidence and what is required for something to be reasonable".

29A said:

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

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...

Oh the irony.

TeleKat said:

I would add Preconceived Worldviews to that list. Many posters base their political affiliation on a worldview they've held for most or all of their life. They refuse to open their mind and think of other possibilities because that would collapse their most deeply held belief structures.

Click to expand...

Good. And here's another, false equivalency, as in this conversation.

RabidAlpaca said:

Prove it. You haven't given a single definition or link that backs that up in any way, shape, or form. Show that atheism MUST describe a religion.

Click to expand...

Jerry said:

You're asking me to show that "green" describes a color.

Click to expand...

Paleocon said:

Oh the irony.

Click to expand...

Care to elaborate?

29A said:

Good. And here's another, false equivalency, as in this conversation.

Click to expand...

No false equivalency is occurring by any party in that thread. You simply fail to realize that there are 2 parts to philosophical identity: your position on gods, and your position on the nature of the world. Just because you don't recognize any gods does not mean you have no position on the nature of the world, and you've been given several specific examples.

an overly simplistic view of politics that sees everything in a one dimensional left to right model.

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.

Click to expand...

You forgot to mention pride, it can be difficult for people to admit that they are wrong.

29A said:

Care to elaborate?

Click to expand...

If you can't see it, I can't help you.

Paleocon said:

If you can't see it, I can't help you.

Click to expand...

Iow, you got nothing. Have a good day.

csbrown28 said:

Conspiracy forums is just slang for "I'm incapable of understanding the concept of evidence and what is required for something to be reasonable".

Click to expand...

Except for the
ones that come true /:0

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.

Quag said:

You forgot to mention pride, it can be difficult for people to admit that they are wrong.

Click to expand...

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.

Jerry said:

No false equivalency is occurring by any party in that thread. You simply fail to realize that there are 2 parts to philosophical identity: your position on gods, and your position on the nature of the world. Just because you don't recognize any gods does not mean you have no position on the nature of the world, and you've been given several specific examples.

Click to expand...

"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?

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...

You realize that you are dealing in gibberish right? "Just because you don't recognize any gods does not mean you have no position on the nature of the world, and you've been given several specific examples." doesn't even make sense.

So, I will add" 'the need to seem really, really well read and intelligent while typing up bull**** in my mother's basement when I should be looking for a job.'

Dittohead not! said:

an overly simplistic view of politics that sees everything in a one dimensional left to right model.

Click to expand...

What he said adding, too much arrogance to admit errors.

Fearandloathing said:

You realize that you are dealing in gibberish right? " Just because you don't recognize any gods does not mean you have no position on the nature of the world, and you've been given several specific examples. " doesn't even make sense.

So, I will add" 'the need to seem really, really well read and intelligent while typing up bull**** in my mother's basement when I should be looking for a job.'

Click to expand...

Gibberish, yes, something like that. I also dispute that Jerry gave examples in the aforementioned thread. I don't know, really, how to interpret the bolded statement. It might mean that he thinks atheism and atheistic worldviews are somehow intertwined, but that is demonstrably false, atheists run the political and scientific gamut. Personally, I'm a libertarian, question the limits of evolution, and doubt AGW.

29A said:

Gibberish, yes, something like that. I also dispute that Jerry gave examples in the aforementioned thread. I don't know, really, how to interpret the bolded statement. It might mean that he thinks atheism and atheistic worldviews are somehow intertwined, but that is demonstrably false, atheists run the political and scientific gamut. Personally, I'm a libertarian, question the limits of evolution, and doubt AGW.

Click to expand...

That sentence needs a lot of help...like a subject and predicate maybe?

29A said:

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...

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 (www.righterreport.com)

"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!

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...

Christianity has so many denominations, interpretations. Pray, tell, which is your denomination, the knowledge of which will result in a better conversation.

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

Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image...

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

The knowledge of good and evil in Genesis 3:22 didn't occur until after their disobedience in Genesis 3:6.

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

I wouldn't disagree, but for Adam to gain that knowledge he had to disobey God.

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

So you're admitting that Adam had to disobey God - which denies the whole free-will argument.

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

Ok.

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

Still, and especially with God's foreknowledge, Adam's punishment was ex post facto, something even humans recognize as wrong.

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

Ok.

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.

No scriptural reference here.

My take is entirely different:

God initially said man was created in His image and likeness, but it wasn't until man partook of the forbidden tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that man actually attained that status, at which point God feared that man would also eat of the tree of life and live forever. Iow, God didn't want any competition.

Many people believe in their religion literally, so that any conflict between reality (how everyone else perceives something) and their world view is ignored or disparaged. For example, saying that "dinosaurs are a trick by satan to deceive humans."

Many people believe in their politics so strongly that any conflict between reality (how nearly everyone else perceives something) and their world view is ignored or disparaged as incosequential or the sole fault of the effected person. For example, the person saying that "anyone can be rich in the USA if they just try hard enough. (ignoring the fact that some people are mentally disabled, for one example of an obstacle to willing oneself into prosperity)

Many people lack the ability to empathize with people that they consider different from themselves, instead they judge others as they judge themselves. For example labelling a severely depressed person as lazy.

Many people lack the ability to believe that things they have not experienced or directly perceived exist. For example, saying "I have never witnesses racial discrimination, so it must not exist in this country."

Being like the fish that don't know that they are wet. The person's experiences are limited so that they don't even know or understand what they don't know or haven't experienced. Privilege and social class are common examples. They can be invisible to people who haven't experienced anything else. For example, a wealthy upper class person can walk into an antique book store, chat with the proprietor briefly and then touch and examine the books. A poor lower class person will have a very different experience, but the wealthy upper class person may not know that he is treated differently. A young and very attractive woman may not know that she is treated a certain way because of her looks.

29A said:

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.

No scriptural reference here.

Click to expand...

It's a combination of scriptures, including man in heaven with God (many scriptures), man "overcoming the world" (1 John 5:5), etc.

My take is entirely different:

29A said:

God initially said man was created in His image and likeness, but it wasn't until man partook of the forbidden tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that man actually attained that status, at which point God feared that man would also eat of the tree of life and live forever. Iow, God didn't want any competition.

Click to expand...

That's been bandied about in Christian circles too, so you're real close. Except God has always known no one (man, Satan, etc.) could be a great God like he is.