1. 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'.

Discussion in 'General Debates' started by Vinayaka, Jan 2, 2020.

  1. Vinayaka

    Vinayaka devotee
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    29,808
    Ratings:
    +13,649
    Religion:
    Saivite Hindu
    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?
     
    • Useful Useful x 2
  2. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    16,040
    Ratings:
    +4,798
    Religion:
    deist
    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
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. SigurdReginson

    SigurdReginson Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2019
    Messages:
    261
    Ratings:
    +279
    Religion:
    None
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
  4. Vinayaka

    Vinayaka devotee
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    29,808
    Ratings:
    +13,649
    Religion:
    Saivite Hindu
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  5. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    24,442
    Ratings:
    +8,072
    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.
     
    #5 Unveiled Artist, Jan 2, 2020
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2020
    • Like Like x 3
  6. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    16,040
    Ratings:
    +4,798
    Religion:
    deist
    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
     
  7. stvdv

    stvdv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2018
    Messages:
    5,774
    Ratings:
    +3,166
    Religion:
    Sanathana Dharma [The Eternal Religion]
    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)
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Nakosis

    Nakosis crystal soldier
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    13,672
    Ratings:
    +5,410
    Religion:
    Atheist Libertarian
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  9. stvdv

    stvdv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2018
    Messages:
    5,774
    Ratings:
    +3,166
    Religion:
    Sanathana Dharma [The Eternal Religion]
    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
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. Vinayaka

    Vinayaka devotee
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    29,808
    Ratings:
    +13,649
    Religion:
    Saivite Hindu
    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..."
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Mestemia

    Mestemia Advocatus Diaboli
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    43,564
    Ratings:
    +8,035
    But...
    1+1 can also equal 1.
    Or three
    ...
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  12. Nowhere Man

    Nowhere Man Bompu Zen Man with a little bit of Bushido.

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    24,987
    Ratings:
    +9,518
    Religion:
    Zen Buddhism
    Is this like , "How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop"?
     
  13. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    42,533
    Ratings:
    +3,571
    note my signature
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. adrian009

    adrian009 Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2014
    Messages:
    8,936
    Ratings:
    +7,068
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    16,040
    Ratings:
    +4,798
    Religion:
    deist
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Jedster

    Jedster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,996
    Ratings:
    +1,298
    you forgot that
    1+ 1 can also = 10

    The proof that 1+1 =1 has an obvious error.
     
  17. Augustus

    Augustus the Unreasonable

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    10,365
    Ratings:
    +9,008
    Religion:
    none
    Often competing ideas are actually complimentary though rather than being mutually exclusive.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. wizanda

    wizanda One Accepts All Religious Texts
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    8,139
    Ratings:
    +1,908
    Religion:
    ├śneness
    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:
     
  19. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    16,040
    Ratings:
    +4,798
    Religion:
    deist
    But that's not a D, surely?
    That's an A
     
  20. stvdv

    stvdv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2018
    Messages:
    5,774
    Ratings:
    +3,166
    Religion:
    Sanathana Dharma [The Eternal Religion]
    :):cool:

    :):cool:
     
Loading...