• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Three sides to a 'debate'.

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Side 1 ... called Person A ... states a premise as the truth
Side 2 ... called Person B ... opposes the premise as absolutely false
Side 3 ... called Person C says, maybe, maybe not to both A, and B, so disagrees with both

I'm rarely on side 1 because I rarely see faith in black and white. In terms of science versus false science, I could be on side 1 for sure.

In terms of faith, I'm almost always Side 3.

I see dogmatic folks as being just as adamant about their position when they debate either person B or C. That puzzles me somewhat, as it seems to me Person C is at least allowing for the possibility that A has it right, whereas Person B clearly doesn't.

Why do you think person A is adamant regardless? Other thoughts?
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Side 1 ... called Person A ... states a premise as the truth
Side 2 ... called Person B ... opposes the premise as absolutely false
Side 3 ... called Person C says, maybe, maybe not to both A, and B, so disagrees with both

I'm rarely on side 1 because I rarely see faith in black and white. In terms of science versus false science, I could be on side 1 for sure.

In terms of faith, I'm almost always Side 3.

I see dogmatic folks as being just as adamant about their position when they debate either person B or C. That puzzles me somewhat, as it seems to me Person C is at least allowing for the possibility that A has it right, whereas Person B clearly doesn't.

Why do you think person A is adamant regardless? Other thoughts?

In the case of one particular Faith I represent person B.
In the cases of every other religion, culture, sect, I mostly just take in what I'm reading unless the poster is extremist about issues.
Extremism? I'm a B...! Literally! :p
 

SigurdReginson

Grēne Mann
Premium Member
Side 1 ... called Person A ... states a premise as the truth
Side 2 ... called Person B ... opposes the premise as absolutely false
Side 3 ... called Person C says, maybe, maybe not to both A, and B, so disagrees with both

I'm rarely on side 1 because I rarely see faith in black and white. In terms of science versus false science, I could be on side 1 for sure.

In terms of faith, I'm almost always Side 3.

I see dogmatic folks as being just as adamant about their position when they debate either person B or C. That puzzles me somewhat, as it seems to me Person C is at least allowing for the possibility that A has it right, whereas Person B clearly doesn't.

Why do you think person A is adamant regardless? Other thoughts?

Not sure, but I think people like person A are important in the world, even if I rarely agree with them. Without those who raise the point or the question, what do we test? It takes person A to build the concept before we can test it's validity.

Now, I can't agree when someone still continues to support the point after it's been dismantled by sufficient evidence. Credulity in opposition to tried and tested results isn't a good trait, IMO.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
In the case of one particular Faith I represent person B.
In the cases of every other religion, culture, sect, I mostly just take in what I'm reading unless the poster is extremist about issues.
Extremism? I'm a B...! Literally! :p

You have reasons for that. I don't. But still I get treated like I am a B. Maybe that's the point I'm trying to make. Person A sees no difference between B and C, and i think there is a substantial difference.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Side 1 ... called Person A ... states a premise as the truth
Side 2 ... called Person B ... opposes the premise as absolutely false
Side 3 ... called Person C says, maybe, maybe not to both A, and B, so disagrees with both

I'm rarely on side 1 because I rarely see faith in black and white. In terms of science versus false science, I could be on side 1 for sure.

In terms of faith, I'm almost always Side 3.

I see dogmatic folks as being just as adamant about their position when they debate either person B or C. That puzzles me somewhat, as it seems to me Person C is at least allowing for the possibility that A has it right, whereas Person B clearly doesn't.

Why do you think person A is adamant regardless? Other thoughts?

Well, coming from a Black/white paradigm ;), I don't see lesser value in black and white thinking as opposed to neutral. How it is presented is the problem I see more than the person's strong opinion on the issue.

For example, you're not a christian and a christian is not a Hindu. Yet, you both have your opinions about which is right and which is wrong. As a Hindu, I'm sure you don't believe in what christians believe about who god is, what, sacrifice, and separating god from everything else?

So, you do have a black and white stand because if not, anything can be true and you can accept anything as truth from Bahai to, I don't know, Islam.

That's the gist of black/white thinking. It's just saying this is true and (I believe) that is not true, so I will stand up for what I believe in...

the problem is when someone "stands up" for what they believe in, they belittle other faiths in light of it. Black and white thinking is fine when the white doesn't overrule the black.

Edit. I'd add that there isn't anything wrong with side 3, of course. Think of it like this

Christian Side 1: God exists
Atheist Side 2: God does not exist
You Side 3: Well, he could or couldn't, we don't know.

Taking a stand to one side over another does't invalidate the nature and respect of the side you may disagree with. Each person has their opinion and stand and I'm assuming that your stand would be the christian side: god exist.

But if it's side 3, does god exist to you or does he not?
If it's side 2, then what do you believe as a Hindu?

So, there has to be some give and take when saying I believe this and I don't believe that.

HOW it is said and intent is the problem not the side taken.
 
Last edited:

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
You have reasons for that. I don't. But still I get treated like I am a B. Maybe that's the point I'm trying to make. Person A sees no difference between B and C, and i think there is a substantial difference.
Oh yes..... there's difference alright,
Me? B.... definitely a B. But my B is a moderate B by my standards, because (sometimes) what I would really like to say is too strong for RF.
But I do notice that your more moderate and less aggressive posts can get treated harshly.

But I don't initiate aggressive 'B' type threads against anything. The thing is, proselytizing is unacceptable on RF but nobody smacks 'Reverse-Anti-Religion proselytizing', and I find that to be strange.
What's the difference between 'You can bet on Father Christmas for heaven!' and 'Watch out for the Father Christmas freaks!' One member posts anti-religious threads on a weekly basis and that's ok.

Me? I want to smack some policies and religions but I don't want to have to go back to chess clubs, 'cos I get beaten too easily. :p
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Side 1 ... called Person A ... states a premise as the truth
Side 2 ... called Person B ... opposes the premise as absolutely false
Side 3 ... called Person C says, maybe, maybe not to both A, and B, so disagrees with both

I'm rarely on side 1 because I rarely see faith in black and white. In terms of science versus false science, I could be on side 1 for sure.

In terms of faith, I'm almost always Side 3.

I see dogmatic folks as being just as adamant about their position when they debate either person B or C. That puzzles me somewhat, as it seems to me Person C is at least allowing for the possibility that A has it right, whereas Person B clearly doesn't.

Why do you think person A is adamant regardless? Other thoughts?

I think it is ignorance to claim "My way is the highway"
1) You must have seen all the other ways
2) You must have studied all the other ways
3) You must have proven all other ways wrong

Unless you are:
Omniscient (have all knowledge),
Omnipresent (have been everywhere)

I think that is impossible to achieve in 1 lifetime

So such a claim is easily proven to be wrong

Why such a person A is adamant regardless?

He never thought about it well enough IMO
(So, it is said out of ignorance)
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Side 1 ... called Person A ... states a premise as the truth
Side 2 ... called Person B ... opposes the premise as absolutely false
Side 3 ... called Person C says, maybe, maybe not to both A, and B, so disagrees with both

I'm rarely on side 1 because I rarely see faith in black and white. In terms of science versus false science, I could be on side 1 for sure.

In terms of faith, I'm almost always Side 3.

I see dogmatic folks as being just as adamant about their position when they debate either person B or C. That puzzles me somewhat, as it seems to me Person C is at least allowing for the possibility that A has it right, whereas Person B clearly doesn't.

Why do you think person A is adamant regardless? Other thoughts?

Probably haven't learned to question the "truth" that has always worked for them in the past. Until your truth gets tested, not much need to question it. I started seeing enough holes in what I accept as truth, I started wondering if all truth has holes in it. So any truth could be partially right but still have holes in it. Especially my own, so for me it's more about finding common ground to work from than declaring a truth and expecting the rest of the world to accept it.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Probably haven't learned to question the "truth" that has always worked for them in the past. Until your truth gets tested, not much need to question it. I started seeing enough holes in what I accept as truth, I started wondering if all truth has holes in it. So any truth could be partially right but still have holes in it. Especially my own, so for me it's more about finding common ground to work from than declaring a truth and expecting the rest of the world to accept it.
Thank you. I like that. I discovered this also about truth.
1+1=2, I can accept as a Truth
But when it comes to faith, then Truth is very subjective as far as I have seen
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Thank you. I like that. I discovered this also about truth.
1+1=2, I can accept as a Truth
But when it comes to faith, then Truth is very subjective as far as I have seen

That's why I'm Person C. But I like @Nakosis 's point. Often there may be little opportunity or reason to question one's own faith. If it's working for you, why doubt? As the old saying goes, 'if it ain't broke..."
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Thank you. I like that. I discovered this also about truth.
1+1=2, I can accept as a Truth
But when it comes to faith, then Truth is very subjective as far as I have seen
But...
1+1 can also equal 1.
Or three
...
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Is this like , "How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop"?
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Side 1 ... called Person A ... states a premise as the truth
Side 2 ... called Person B ... opposes the premise as absolutely false
Side 3 ... called Person C says, maybe, maybe not to both A, and B, so disagrees with both

I'm rarely on side 1 because I rarely see faith in black and white. In terms of science versus false science, I could be on side 1 for sure.

In terms of faith, I'm almost always Side 3.

I see dogmatic folks as being just as adamant about their position when they debate either person B or C. That puzzles me somewhat, as it seems to me Person C is at least allowing for the possibility that A has it right, whereas Person B clearly doesn't.

Why do you think person A is adamant regardless? Other thoughts?
note my signature
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Side 1 ... called Person A ... states a premise as the truth
Side 2 ... called Person B ... opposes the premise as absolutely false
Side 3 ... called Person C says, maybe, maybe not to both A, and B, so disagrees with both

I'm rarely on side 1 because I rarely see faith in black and white. In terms of science versus false science, I could be on side 1 for sure.

In terms of faith, I'm almost always Side 3.

I see dogmatic folks as being just as adamant about their position when they debate either person B or C. That puzzles me somewhat, as it seems to me Person C is at least allowing for the possibility that A has it right, whereas Person B clearly doesn't.

Why do you think person A is adamant regardless? Other thoughts?

You forgot to mention Side 4 called Person D says I can see strengths and weaknesses to both A, and B, so finds agreement with both.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
You forgot to mention Side 4 called Person D says I can see strengths and weaknesses to both A, and B, so finds agreement with both.
That's also called 'Wishy-Washy'.
The World is full of wishy-washies, it's true, the fence-sitters who let things grow and grow and grow until it's too late.
 
You forgot to mention Side 4 called Person D says I can see strengths and weaknesses to both A, and B, so finds agreement with both.

That's also called 'Wishy-Washy'.
The World is full of wishy-washies, it's true, the fence-sitters who let things grow and grow and grow until it's too late.

Often competing ideas are actually complimentary though rather than being mutually exclusive.
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
Why do you think person A is adamant regardless? Other thoughts?
If we only listen to a boxing match, and wonder why it is thuggery; whilst we choose a side, we're clearly not that conscious.

Maybe actually watch the match, read the books, understand the contexts; then we'd see person A had a standard, with person B most likely having a slightly different standard...

Thus person C should adjudicate with additional factors, and we could come to a conclusion of logic between us.

Yet due to some thinking that when we are bringing others to a point of being logical about a topic, that is proselytizing, it isn't approaching Satsang; which means ultimately we come to advance resolutions between us.

What you're discussing in terms of something similar to political arguing with each other, is the opposite of a logical debate.

In my opinion. :innocent:
 
Top