Difference of Opinion

[mazHur]

That's too bad because you really limit yourself when you limit your relationships.

very correct:thumbup

 

[RedRyder]

Ok the injun is starting to come out of me... in a good way... for now at least so shove on over girls and let me squish inbetwixe you.... That's better... now squish in close cuz I'ma no wanna repeat myself.

The thing that I've noticed and makes me wery wery cwanky is when something is misunderstood and no matter what a person says they can't convince someone that it was misunderstood. To make maters worse when you axe 'em to go back and re-read the fucking post they couldn't be bothered. Make sense that I get cwanky?


Now that I got that of my chest and speakin' of injuns ... um... you ever have any injun in ya?

I too find it rather annoying that something written in a post by myself is read by another who does the 'pick and choose' kind of reading. Taking things out of context and turning it around to suite their agenda at the time. Whatever their agenda might be.... because sometimes it's really hard to figure out at first.

Once I 'think' I know what they are on about.... then I will most likely try to defend my stance and ask them to reread what 'I' wrote in the first place and will elaborate to make it clearer. Sometimes it will work... other times... not so much.

.... so yes.... I can understand your concern.

..... as for the injun question.... Yes. I have Cherokee blood running through my veins. Most likely just a wee bit from a prick way long ago..... but in me just the same. Oh.... and not a 'PRICK' prick.... a Prick like in pricking one's finger. Just wanted to establish that before others got the wrong idea.

This would be on my father's side of the family tree. As far as a percentage of how much.... I haven't a clue. Probably minimal. I do not recall hearing stories of relatives wearing loincloths and feathers..... although there are a few that do so today whilst drunk. I am not one of those!

 

[edgray]

Fights do not occur due to someone's 'closed-minded' opinion, especially on forums, it is just really a matter of opinion whether that person is close minded or not. All I have seen on this site, and on others it is because everyone believes that religious people are close minded, which isn't correct, those who oppose religion are the ones that really start accusing others of being that, which is really unfair, because one person starts a thread expects someone to reply to their threads, if they don't like the opinion they get accused of being either close minded or backwards

There is one very good reason why religious beliefs are the very definition of close-minded: they have an foregone conclusion. Evolution is wrong because God made man. A belief in God offers and explanation with no reasoning, no observation, no testing. And if reality is shown to disagree with that belief, what happens? Reality gets dismissed.

That is the very definition of close-mindedness.

Anything based on the scientific method cannot ever be described as closed-minded - because it's falsifiable by it's own means.

True dat. Although your first sentence is wrong. The ones that accuse religious people of being closed minded by virtue of being religious are the closed-minded ones in this case. If both are truly open-minded, there will be no fight.

see above.

 

[Dana]

How will you know "FOR SURE" that they think the same way you do, if you "NEVER" talk about it with them? :confused :ninja

Example: My friend loves to talk shop about historical in accuracies and things about the bible that don't make sense. Some people are outspoken about their beliefs. Thats how... If you don't know don't ask, don't tell... Play dumb. That's my philosophy. it's better to keep friends that get into useless debates over such stupid topics.

 

[JoeCool10]

I want nothing to do with people having radically opposed views from mine -in other words, flawed views- on matters such as religion, belief, sexual preference/sexual liberties or liberties and politics.

Exactly my take, to a tee.

 

[mazHur]

Nobody would like to post what you liked or not. If you don't like something you better don't go there!

 

[HK]

I'm not particularly quick to anger. I like the odd debate, but I've got no interest in things getting heated, and when people get angry because you don't see things the same way, or they feel you're insulting them personally by saying 'I think this is wrong', it just makes things sour.

Even when someone is.... really quite rude, in a discussion that doesn't warrant such rudeness, I try to stay polite. Half the time, when I'm discussing something on here, I just put down my thoughts at the time and it has very little impact on how I view that person elsewhere on the board - unless they have an extreme view like 'rape is sometimes okay''. It just takes all the fun out of it when someone starts getting overly scathing and rude, just because you don't agree.

 

[Dana]

Flawed according to whom exactly? Because they don't coincide with your beliefs do you believe they're views are flawed? That is pretty facking narrow minded if so...

 

[Accountable]

There is one very good reason why religious beliefs are the very definition of close-minded: they have an foregone conclusion. Evolution is wrong because God made man. A belief in God offers and explanation with no reasoning, no observation, no testing. And if reality is shown to disagree with that belief, what happens? Reality gets dismissed.

That is the very definition of close-mindedness.

Anything based on the scientific method cannot ever be described as closed-minded - because it's falsifiable by it's own means.



see above.

I did see it, and it reveals a mind snapped shut as tight as an oyster. You've painted all religion and all religious people with a single broad brush. That is the very definition of close-mindedness.

 

[mazHur]

I did see it, and it reveals a mind snapped shut as tight as an oyster. You've painted all religion and all religious people with a single broad brush. That is the very definition of close-mindedness.

:thumbup

 

[edgray]

I did see it, and it reveals a mind snapped shut as tight as an oyster. You've painted all religion and all religious people with a single broad brush. That is the very definition of close-mindedness.

Not at all. It's simply the way it is, nothing closed minded about it.

Show me a believer in God that doesn't attribute at least one natural phenomenon to God without any observation or testable hypothesis. Look at any religious person defending their belief in God - no proof, noi evidence, ignoring any facts that come their way. Show me how many religious people agree with the theory of evolution, the theories of Abiogenesis etc.

You see a strong correlation to ignorance of new discoveries within the religious in society.

The belief in God closes doors. It gives a final answer to everything with no proof.

A scientific mind simply accepts the results of the scientific method, whether it agrees with their beliefs or refutes them. Belief hinders learning. Belief distracts from reality.

 

[mazHur]

Not at all. It's simply the way it is, nothing closed minded about it.

Show me a believer in God that doesn't attribute at least one natural phenomenon to God without any observation or testable hypothesis. Look at any religious person defending their belief in God - no proof, noi evidence, ignoring any facts that come their way. Show me how many religious people agree with the theory of evolution, the theories of Abiogenesis etc.

You see a strong correlation to ignorance of new discoveries within the religious in society.

The belief in God closes doors. It gives a final answer to everything with no proof.

A scientific mind simply accepts the results of the scientific method, whether it agrees with their beliefs or refutes them. Belief hinders learning. Belief distracts from reality.

Ed, I think what you've stated may stand true for a clergy but it doesn't seem to apply per se to a common man.

are you sure all of the great scientists were not attached to some religion???

Religion, I think, doesn't wholly deny science but is mainly limited to such topics which are as yet beyond human understanding!

 

[edgray]

Ed, I think what you've stated may stand true for a clergy but it doesn't seem to apply per se to a common man.

are you sure all of the great scientists were not attached to some religion???

Religion, I think, doesn't wholly deny science but is mainly limited to such topics which are as yet beyond human understanding!

Statistically, the higher level of the scientist, the less chance they believe in God. The amount of scientists who subscribe to an organised religion is much, much less.

In a thread not too long ago both yourself and Sadie declared that you know 100% there is a God. You have to see how that 100% faith in something like that has a negative affect on new information being received.

Science hasn't explained everything for sure. But it's the only non-subjective way of viewing reality we have at this present moment in time.

 

[mazHur]

Statistically, the higher level of the scientist, the less chance they believe in God. The amount of scientists who subscribe to an organised religion is much, much less.

In a thread not too long ago both yourself and Sadie declared that you know 100% there is a God. You have to see how that 100% faith in something like that has a negative affect on new information being received.

Science hasn't explained everything for sure. But it's the only non-subjective way of viewing reality we have at this present moment in time.

I didn't know there was 'categorization' of scientists too...
how do you classify their standing??

I am a science student as well...in fact a scientist in status and having at least one patented invention on record and some in the pipeline. At the same I am not religious....even though I belong to an organized religion. I never felt religion stood in my way against scientific pursuit. Where would you place less famous or anon scientists like me in the ''hieirarchy' of scientists you state????

 

[Accountable]

Not at all. It's simply the way it is, nothing closed minded about it.

Well, you certainly seem to believe 100% that you know the right answer.

 

[Minor Axis]

Well, you certainly seem to believe 100% that you know the right answer.

One of many.

 

[edgray]

I didn't know there was 'categorization' of scientists too...
how do you classify their standing??

By their educational level: bachelor of science, master of science, doctor of science.

I am a science student as well...in fact a scientist in status and having at least one patented invention on record and some in the pipeline. At the same I am not religious....even though I belong to an organized religion. I never felt religion stood in my way against scientific pursuit. Where would you place less famous or anon scientists like me in the ''hieirarchy' of scientists you state????

Depends on the educational level of the person at hand.

Well, you certainly seem to believe 100% that you know the right answer.

It's based on empiricism. I'll say I know to a 99% probability, there's always the fact that new understanding will prove me wrong and I accept that.

 

[Accountable]

No, I don't believe you would, for with you it's not empiricism but elitism. It's an ugly side of you, my friend.

 

[edgray]

No, I don't believe you would, for with you it's not empiricism but elitism. It's an ugly side of you, my friend.

ok if you say so.

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

Not all religious people are close-minded, but I've never met any (open-minded ones). The very definition of close-minded is "Not open to new ideas" (check Google too), and I've never met any religious people or any religions that have welcomed new concepts of science into them.