Flow Chart - How To Have A Rational Discussion (page 3)

beksbks

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?

TD! Excellent!

AGuest

I see that you aguest use evolutionsit to mean different things.

Yes, sorry, dear Curtain (peace to you!)... but, like religion/christianity, evolution means different things to different ones. I mean those who believe that all live evolved from one common ancestor (vs. was created from that one ancestor). It is the usual definition (at least, as far as my research revealed). I realize that there are those who believe in creation who also accept evolution; I do, to certain extents (set forth in other threads); however, while I agree that a belief in evolution does not necessarily imply atheism, I cannot see how atheism cannot equate to a belief in evolution (is there something besides evolution or creation?). I should have been clearer... ummmm... more clear... so my apologies to any evolutionists/atheists who may have been offended.

Again, peace to you!

A slave of Christ,

SA, who drank iced tea in order to stay awake (for the first time in over 20 years) to "watch the ball drop"... and now can't go to sleep...

Curtains

aguest

while I agree that a belief in evolution does not necessarily imply atheism, I cannot see how atheism cannot equate to a belief in evolution (is there something besides evolution or creation?).

there are many alternatives to Darwinian evolution and to creationism that have been proposed over time, some examples (among many) of non creationist alternatives to evolution are

orthogenesis

neo-Lamarkianism

process structuralism

saltationism

Peace to you too

curtains

dogon

Dubbers do not play by the rules others play by. I once had a conversation with an elder named Kunde who said that dubbers are open minded in all things but to material critical to dubdom. I said you can not be open minded and use the word except in any way shape or form. I have them run from my door shaking their bibles yelling they have the true god when they are confronted with the smallest amount of evidence to the contrary of the cult. They are taught from the second the indoctrination is started to feel superior to anyone not in the cult. This is a reinforcement tactic that keeps people with low self esteem in the cult. They are told that not to rely on their own understanding as it is faulty and to rely on those god has chosen. By making the equation Gov. Body=God you go against god if you go against any of the dubdom authority. This keeps many so scared of even uttering the most minimal of questions. Its a good system for mind control, it worked well for Jim Jones.

jgnat

Aguest, by slotting people in to broad categories, such as "pure evolutionists", you have committed the error of the dogmatist. It seems to me from what you are saying, everyone is free to believe what they want, as long as they conform to your view of God's wishes. This is not rational.

A rational discussion on evolution, if the best evidence shows it is the most plausible explanation, must be accepted. No matter if the person is a supposed Christian, athiest, or "pure evolutionist".

THE GLADIATOR

If each person is unwilling to concede they are wrong, no matter what evidence is shown, the discussion is pointless. Are they arguing to strengthen their beliefs or to learn something new?

If a person's beliefs are irrational, it will not be possible to have a rational discussion. Most people discuss their pet beliefs in order to strengthen their cognitive dissidence. Others as an excuse to vent anger or gain attention. For these reasons, few discussion are worth the effort; though some can be helpful if conducted with the right spirit.

Qcmbr

To many Christians the point isn't to discuss or even to debate - it is simply to warn. Anything else is unpaid overtime.

cofty

There is one other aspect to public debate though that all of this overlooks. Even if your opponent is a stubborn, obtuse buffoon, if there are other people observing the discussion they may be helped by seeing the difference between reason and dogma.

leavingwt

There is one other aspect to public debate though that all of this overlooks. Even if your opponent is a stubborn, obtuse buffoon, if there are other people observing the discussion they may be helped by seeing the difference between reason and dogma.

Indeed. In this regard, we haven't had any significant JW apologists in quite a few months, IMHO.

Admittedly, however, it's a difficult task to defend WT, when every single argument must eventually boil down to the following:

AGuest

Aguest, by slotting people in to broad categories, such as "pure evolutionists", you have committed the error of the dogmatist.

My sincere apologies, dear JGnat (peace to you!), if my "label" was incorrect. I base the term on comments by some (physicists) that:

"... pure evolutionists believe that the different species of animal and plant life developed through natural forces on the earth and were not the result of "design" by a divine creator. "

If that boxes people incorrectly, then I recant, because I know how I don't like it when people do so regarding me. My statement, however, was with regard to those who believe such. If there is another way to identify them then I am more than open to someone enlightening me.

It seems to me from what you are saying, everyone is free to believe what they want, as long as they conform to your view of God's wishes. This is not rational.

I am not sure where/how you get that from what I stated/share (anywhere). I believe everyone is free to believe whatever they want. Period. Except during my stint as a JW, I've always believed that and always will.

A rational discussion on evolution, if the best evidence shows it is the most plausible explanation, must be accepted. No matter if the person is a supposed Christian, athiest, or "pure evolutionist".

I absolutely agree... that a rational discussion must be accepted. I don't agree that the evidence presented by various evolutionary theories IS the best or shows it to be the most plausible explanation. I think BOTH atheists (pure evolutionists, as I mean that term) and "christians", however, expend so much energy basing their respective positions and arguments on opposing the others views... that BOTH miss the [very serious] flaws in their own. And I think that THAT... is irrational.

there are many alternatives to Darwinian evolution and to creationism that have been proposed over time

Yes, and thank you for that information, dear Curtains (peace to you, as well!). Don't all of these propose evolution (vs. ceation) in some form or another, however, albeit perhaps not such as Darwin theorized? I only know basic stuff about two (orthogenesis and saltation), so you are more than welcome to share where I'm wrong/misinformed.

BTW - Thank you BOTH for the kind statement of your positions, versus deteriorating to calling those who don't agree with you/see things your way names. Unfortunately, not all on EITHER side of the debate can refrain from doing that, sad to say. To me, it is evidence of a severe lack of intellect (in the case of an atheist, who resorts to name-calling rather than simply refuting a valid argument)... and a severe lack of intellect AND Christ (in the case of a so-called "christian" so does so). People who call names rather than maturely articulating their beliefs/understanding are, IMHO, those who don't really know what they truly believe personally. Thus, they are usually among those who are misled... by "every wind of teaching."

Again, peace to you, both!

A slave of Christ,

SA

Flow Chart - How To Have A Rational Discussion

Share this