This really is such a interesting example of the forming of debate in this forum. Firstly, I enjoyed the following threads:

Is Atheism An Excuse To Embrace Immoral Behavior?

and

Is Theism An Excuse To Embrace Judgemental Behavior?


At first glance, depending on which generalization you take stance on (if you do), These threads seem aggressive and blunt. But i think they serve as a sharpening stone for philosophers. I like the idea that we could take solid expressions and break them down (to the point of torture in some cases:brickwall::poke-eye:).

They only problem That i think many can relate to is the refusal to accept the things we cannot change; the courage to change the things we can; and wisdom to know the difference. lol. A religious prayer with some wisdom.(Does this make me religious? )

Other then that, I guess I'm saying these threads are not in my opinion, Frivolous or self- substantiating. They may start like that it SEEMS, but the doors of communication seem to be the widest in these threads. Hope to see more brave philosophers.:devilish::baloons:

This really is such a interesting example of the forming of debate in this forum. Firstly, I enjoyed the following threads:

Is Atheism An Excuse To Embrace Immoral Behavior?

and

Is Theism An Excuse To Embrace Judgemental Behavior?


At first glance, depending on which generalization you take stance on (if you do), These threads seem aggressive and blunt. But i think they serve as a sharpening stone for philosophers. I like the idea that we could take solid expressions and break them down (to the point of torture in some cases:brickwall::poke-eye:).

Hi All!

Framing the question and metaphor. Is Theisim an excuse to feel self-righteous?

George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics

sometimes the questions are framed for a particular outcome.

Hi All!

Framing the question and metaphor. Is Theisim an excuse to feel self-righteous?

George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics

sometimes the questions are framed for a particular outcome.

In the case of someone like Richard Dawkins or Bill Maher, is atheism an excuse to feel self-righteous?

:whistling:

As much as I agree that the doors should be open to this sort of communication, I also know the dangers of allowing grotesque generalizations and aggressive topics. It is our responsibility as philosophers to know the difference between objective criticism and subjective aggression. Neither of these threads were achieving a goal but rather building a rift between atheism and theism.

You see, when we build a wall like that and start hurling blame and aggression over it at each other, the same thing happens that happened in the middle east thousands of years a go and in Europe hundreds of years ago. Fighting and war over a silly difference of ideas. Frankly, I see no reason to believe in anything. It seems silly to me to dedicate my life to something blindly and call it faith. Still, others will tell me that I am a blasphemer while still other will tell me that I am a model of rationality and logic. Neither is correct. I am me. Just a humble creature living with the choices that I have made and the ability to change the direction of my life at any moment. That is also how I hope to be judged. Not as an atheist or agnostic or governent worker or any of the other things which I choose to do or have chosen to do. I wish to be judged on the sole factor of my ideas and who I am in relation to the universe as a whole.

I do not fit in a box and do not think that good, productive conversation can fit in one either.

And I know what some will say to this. Yes, we are all in a box of some size or shape.... Language, species, so on and so forth. I am talking about the man made labels of personal ideas.

:whistling:

As much as I agree that the doors should be open to this sort of communication, I also know the dangers of allowing grotesque generalizations and aggressive topics. It is our responsibility as philosophers to know the difference between objective criticism and subjective aggression. Neither of these threads were achieving a goal but rather building a rift between atheism and theism.

You see, when we build a wall like that and start hurling blame and aggression over it at each other, the same thing happens that happened in the middle east thousands of years a go and in Europe hundreds of years ago. Fighting and war over a silly difference of ideas. Frankly, I see no reason to believe in anything. It seems silly to me to dedicate my life to something blindly and call it faith. Still, others will tell me that I am a blasphemer while still other will tell me that I am a model of rationality and logic. Neither is correct. I am me. Just a humble creature living with the choices that I have made and the ability to change the direction of my life at any moment. That is also how I hope to be judged. Not as an atheist or agnostic or governent worker or any of the other things which I choose to do or have chosen to do. I wish to be judged on the sole factor of my ideas and who I am in relation to the universe as a whole.

I do not fit in a box and do not think that good, productive conversation can fit in one either.

And I know what some will say to this. Yes, we are all in a box of some size or shape.... Language, species, so on and so forth. I am talking about the man made labels of personal ideas.

As dangerous that they may be, they must be allowed, because some ideas "forbid" the existence of certain other ideas, and its better that they clash in open discussion than in secrecy.

I want to understand what the separation is between OPINIONATED statements and FACTUAL statements.

I was thinking about the main point about why i made this thread. Mostly I want to understand what the separation is between OPINIONATED statements and FACTUAL statements. I think that the arguments are very easy to slate when you say "oh thats opinion your forcing as a fact". Of course this happens with everyone because its how we state our facts in formative ideas. With subjects involving deep beliefs on our existence, I think its used as a defense as much as it seems as an offense.

I like to break it down whenever I can to (+)+(+)=+. Its hard sometimes but remembering this formula helps weave out alot of the accessories that are in between the ideas.

The difference between factual information and opinion is the difference between objective and subjective information.

Example. Norway is in northern Europe = Objective. I can go there and prove this. Fact

Christians are [in my experience] closed minded = Subjective. My experience is not all inclusive. Opinion

The fact of the matter is that we have all lived very different lives and so we have come to different conclusions. We talk to share our views but must remember that we have only one side of the story.

The problem is that people assume that a fact can be derived from logic alone. But what they don't realize is that 1) people have different logical processes from one another, and 2) for something to make logical sense doesn't coronate it as a fact.

Right so where do you think the break down when to use opinion with fact as opposed to verses? Because if we just talk about facts we end up ignoring the gap of perception.

I think this would all crumble if people asked themselves what they REALLY know about the subject they're discussing. I mean how much experiential or academic knowledge do we have of these subjects? To what degree do we investigate the methodological soundness of our sources?