Debate and Reason:How to exchange ideas.

Chessie

Chessie

Community Member
MBTI
INfJ
http://atheismresource.com/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Flow-Chart.jpg

I've just come across this particular piece of extremely interesting graphical art which I think I'll be making use of in every discussion I have with people from now on.

I've long since become exhausted with persons absolutely set in an idea. Any idea. I always hoped that one day, I would meet a Christian or a person with a strong religious conviction who could exchange ideas with me in this way but my encounters with them are very rare. In fact, I can't say I ever have. Still, I leave it open as a possibility.
 
I think in relation to Christians this kind of design could lead to a decision for a pretty quick end. The reason is that the construct is a pretty linear. I run into a good many people who want to approach these matters primarily through intelllect and logic, but from what I have seen that logic tends to reveals itself to be 1) linear, limited, and sometimes too ego-driven and 2) based on givens/assumptions that are too different. Add to this that there are other types of intelligence that must be employed as well as actual personal experience. This is why I speculate that there are often so many disconnects in discussing spiritual matters, other then perhaps on a pastoral level. A basic inner openness is required.

If this construct will help you avoid frustration in this setting, I can certainly understand that. I'm just not sure how much progress it will yield in actual understandings, if that is a desired outcome.
 
The primary point of this construct is to weed out persons with whom having a discussion is entirely meaningless. If a person can't exchange information using this very linear system then the information they're exchanging is most likely illogical and inapplicable to anyone's decision making process but their own and that of people who share the same beliefs.
 
I thought "Interesting, maybe I should click." Does so... "Oh for fucks sake, another 'how to argue the non-existence of god' piece/article/leaflet/image."

Isn't this particularly redundant? I mean if you're an atheist what are you trying to do? Convert people? Isn't that a massive hypocritical move regardless of theology?

Maybe it was stupid of me to think that anything good could come out of the Philosophy and Religion section.

(By the way, if you do end up being offended by my post then chances are you're one of those people whom I don't care about offending. If not, well done you.)
 
I didn't post this aimed at Christians in particular. More specifically I posted it as a simple guide for discussions of all kinds. Political, religious, sexual, and social.
 
Chessie said:
I didn't post this aimed at Christians in particular. More specifically I posted it as a simple guide for discussions of all kinds. Political, religious, sexual, and social.
Click to expand...

Thats bull.

Chessie said:
http://atheismresource.com/wp-conten...Flow-Chart.jpg

I've just come across this particular piece of extremely interesting graphical art which I think I'll be making use of in every discussion I have with people from now on.

I've long since become exhausted with persons absolutely set in an idea. Any idea.
Click to expand...

So far so good but then you say...

Chessie said:
I always hoped that one day, I would meet a Christian or a person with a strong religious conviction who could exchange ideas with me in this way but my encounters with them are very rare. In fact, I can't say I ever have. Still, I leave it open as a possibility.
Click to expand...

Typical.
 
corndogman said:
Thats bull.
Click to expand...

So because she mentioned Christians, that makes the whole topic aimed at them specifically?
It could suggest as much, but it proves nothing. Besides, Chessie's particular implementations of the flowchart are immaterial. The link is from an atheistic website, but the content is equally applicable to any topic subject to rational debate.
 
Chessie said:
I didn't post this aimed at Christians in particular. More specifically I posted it as a simple guide for discussions of all kinds. Political, religious, sexual, and social.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Just when I see "atheistresource.com" and "Debating a Christian" and it immediately turns me off. Mostly because I identify myself as an atheist and would rather this kind of self righteousness makes me ashamed to carry the label. After all, as soon as you start trying to lay a belief (even if it's the concept of non-belief) on someone as an atheist, that's when you should really start looking in the mirror.
_____________________

Back on topic though, I find debating is a flawed concept. The only time I tend to enter a debate is when I think someone is wrong, and they reply while inevitably believing that I'm wrong. The only result for me is enjoying a good argument while I get to flex my ability to create metaphors.

If I want to learn something or teach something I enquire and share. Usually in that order. You need to find a common ground before you start finding differences, else nobody is going to listen to what you say.

Edit: Also interestingly enough I never mentioned Christians. Unfortunately I'd be lying if I claimed I wasn't thinking about them more when I posted but I do like to at least keep a space in my mind for the other religions out there.
 
Chessie said:
The primary point of this construct is to weed out persons with whom having a discussion is entirely meaningless.
Click to expand...
Yes, there are those out there. I avoid them, too :)

I guess I'm at the point where I have to recognize that virtualy no one shares my views completely (Christian or not) and so I don't expect any great alignments in the realm of discussion. There is simply too much personal experience at play...and it would be unfair to expect anybody to be able to access that (and visa versa). So meeting of minds here and there, respecting and expecting differences, finding common ground where possible, learning where I can and living with what I cannot has become my main mode of operation these days.
 
Logic is subjective to premise. Evidence is subjective to interpretation.

These rules are almost impossible to follow. Mainly, I just see a great of subjectivity. "The position that is more reasonable and has more supporting evidence" is a prime example.

This chart attempts to make a "debate" or "discussion" into a systemized conversation, which, although I don't think that is particularly bad, I think they did it in the wrong way. Words and principles need defining. Also, the title, "Debating a Christian," is terribly biased. This chart also seems to put a considerable importance on who is "right," which I don't really agree with. The goal of a discussion should be to come to a concession and for both parties to influence and give insight to each other, not for the "correct" party to utterly destroy the "incorrect" party.
 
TheLastMohican said:
So because she mentioned Christians, that makes the whole topic aimed at them specifically?
It could suggest as much, but it proves nothing. Besides, Chessie's particular implementations of the flowchart are immaterial. The link is from an atheistic website, but the content is equally applicable to any topic subject to rational debate.
Click to expand...

Basically yes. Its too complex to explain. you either get it or you dont.
 
o_q said:
People who actually have complex ideas can't funnel a brain through their speech hole and expect everything to be intact.
Click to expand...

No, but then this is not about complex ideas. This is about complex evidence. Corndogman apparently believes that he has a window into Chessie's brain, and if he cannot offer an explanation of his reasoning on that point, it probably doesn't exist.
 
o_q said:
Only an ENTJ would believe that.
Click to expand...
Not so; many S types would agree with him.
People who actually have complex ideas can't funnel a brain through their speech hole and expect everything to be intact.
Click to expand...

I often find that language fails to convey ideas properly. Sometimes I can do a little better by at least switching parts of it into Latin, but that does not always suffice. Forcing a complex web of ideas into a linear medium like speech or writing is often a daunting task.
 
I agree with Nil, the chart throws up to many red flags.
 
Go die in a fire Barnabas. A big fire. Possibly one might say, a lake, full of fiery things.
 
so do atheists need guidelines when it comes to discussing opposing viewpoints reasonably?* it's probably not a good sign if you need to follow a chart.

*i wouldn't say so but i find the implication a bit hilarious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top