Does this flow chart apply to political discussions?
Yes, but with the addition of one more gate:
Did you cut and paste an Editorial or Op-ed piece as proof of your position?
Flow Chart - How To Have A Rational Discussion
by cofty 32 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
TD
-
cofty
Both groups are absolutely convinced that God does NOT hate them.
hahaha - good point
-
whereami
Thanks cofty. Great flow chart.
Both groups are absolutely convinced that God does NOT hate them.
Yeah but the Christian believes that their God will kill you for not believing in their version him.
Big difference.
-
Judge Dread
Try this with your wife and see what happens.
JDW
-
jgnat
I call myself a Christian skeptic. I've had trouble with dogmatists of all stripes (including my own daughter!) but I must admit that the toughest group to have a genuine discussion with are the bible-believing Christians. So I'd like to add a few:
- Play the Hitler card and you are out. (this works as well with a dogmatic athiest)
- Any "bible proof" that your words are divine and, well, mine are from that other place, and you are out.
and, especially for this board,
- Any question that the speaker is genuine (genuine ex-witness, genuine witness) and the discussion is over. We have to watch that we ourselves don't become the enemy to inclusiveness.
-
cofty
Play the Hitler card and you are out
Well done - any infringement of Godwin's Law is an automatic fail
-
whereami
Play the Hitler card and you are out
Just show them this jgnat, lol.
-
AGuest
If one of your arguments is found to be faulty will you stop using that argument (with everyone)?
I have found that both "christians" and atheists have a hard time with this (may you all have peace!):
"Christians"... as to things like the Trinity and the Bible being the Word of God (not to mention that although Christ is supposedly alive, he doesn't speak). That the Bible does not support it being the Word of God... and gives great evidence that God is not a Trinity, "christians" tend to either get "testy", even abusive [in speech AND/or deed!]... or leave off the discussion entirely.
Atheists (or, rather, pure evolutionists)... with regard to evolution beyond the species. For example, although a medium ground finch may adapt to its environment in order to survive (i.e., develop a smaller beak), it is still geospiza fortis (i.e., a medium ground finch). It does not evolve into some other species of finch. Or although some specimens of e.coli may adapt in order to be able to feed off something previously thought/known impossible... they still ends up being e.coli (versus some other species of the escherichia bacteria). Although evolution to a sub-species is quite understandable. But raise this issue and again, ridicule, testiness, even abandonment of discussion.
Both raise as their position that the other party cannot/is unwilling to "envision anything that could change their minds." I have learned, however, that it is their minds that are resistant to change. And it seems to me that it's primarily for one reason: fear. "Christians," because they don't know where else to go and so are afraid to examine their beliefs because it might move them to "leave" their religion... and atheists (pure evolutionists) because they're afraid of [going back to] religion.
Both are valid and I understand both, which is why I feel there's no reason to take offense at either position. It is not a person's beliefs that are harmful - it's what they do/don't as a result of those beliefs.
Again, I bid you all peace!
A slave of Christ,
SA
-
tec
I think I fail :)
Only because I would ask who determines what the basic principals of reason are, and their importance, and if the other person would consider what I had to say about them... ;). Because by their example evidence is in play, and what some people consider to be evidence and what other people consider to be evidence are very often quite different. And if, by evidence, one means scientific proof... then we know that a discussion about faith vs. no faith becomes pointless.
So I would need that question fully answered before I agreed to it.
(sorry, lol, but the word 'evidence' seems like a fine print word that should have an asterik next to it, so we know exactly what constitutes as evidence... and I always read the fine print)
Tammy
edited to add: I meant to say that I'm fine with all the rest of it... just wary on that one word, evidence :)
-
Curtains
If one wants to have a rational discussion then one must be patient and not demean others.
Another point is to be clear about what terms mean and what their implications are. To do this one has to establish how they are using the term. For example I see that you aguest use evolutionsit to mean different things. You talk about a pure evolutionist - by this do you mean an atheist? I ask because to me evolution is separate from atheism and it is separate from theism. It cannot be used to support either atheism or theism to exclude the other. In other words I have come to the conclusion that evolution is compatible with both atheism and theism. So when I use the term evolution I will be talking about evolution itself and not about theism or atheism.