Just as a general point along these lines (and partially to JohnnieEnigma), if I were asked to name famous fictional atheists currently in popular culture, two names come to mind; House, who as has been pointed out is a bastard, and Bones from that anthropology/crime show thing, who embodies the strict scientist/belittles faith whenever she sees it stereotype. That’s not to say that there aren’t atheists like either of those people, and likewise there are plenty of screwed up religious characters, but I can’t off the top of my head think of a fictional, atheist character currently that’s nice. As for the whole “this is a secular culture” argument; in terms of history, most certainly it is. But I think that what is actually the case is a present slightly more secular than even 50 years ago is being compared to those times, and so being seen as secular. It really isn’t. You have, what, one admitted atheist congressman?
Our arguments do often tend to turn out towards this kind of thing, it has to be said. I appreciate your faith in me (see, i’m not against all faith!) and i’ll try to understand as best I can what you say. I have no doubt that what you tell me you believe to be true; I do assume that you are consistent, so while I disagree I don’t think you should worry about doing your faith disservice too much (though some i’d agree is inevitable if it is true).
I do tend to like this view (well, obviously, I would); it seems too much to me religious types are all too prepared to do their god’s work for them. True believers, I would have thought, would be content to have trust in their upstairs guy to sort things out (absent commands).
I would argue doesn’t serve us, since any help he gives is not because we are an authority to him, with power over him; he does so because he wants to. But this is probably a semantic difference.
alright, you asked for it. you have no idea how I rationalize things though. sometimes there’s no logic or reason in my thinking, and other times, there are real strong, valid arguments. It depends on the subject…
I’m not a guy; which means I don’t have that aggressive testasterone running through my system. And although I’m competitive by nature and I like to win, women are hard-wired differently; which means we argue and rationalize differently. I think you should take that into consideration.
wow, talk about a rationalization for debating tactics. this one’s a corker.
Your case is, as near as I can tell, “Because I’m a woman, you can’t expect me to be able to form a logical argument or defend any position I happen to take. Also, don’t expect my answers to bear the slightest resemblence to questions asked.”
I’m not really sure how to respond to that within the strictures of Great Debates.
not really close. I’m saying some of my opinions are light-hearted and I won’t be citing proof for them … they are based on personal experiences, observations, and the like. Other arguments will be backed up with hardcore proof and reasoning for why I think as I do. You’re only willing to accept an argument in a debate setting if there is some kind of backup to justify a belief system. Although I’m interested in why someone feels as they do, it’s not a mandatory thing for me. there’s the difference. If you don’t prove or justify your thoughts, I won’t discredit you for it. You’re still entitled to your opinion.
This need for proof seems to be based on a refusal to accept an opinion that differs from your own belief system.
My point is, women and men differ in the way they argue. For some reason these debates need to include cites and backup info, otherwise an argument is deemed irrelevent. I think this is a masculine way to deal with arguing and debating as well as an aggressive tactic to knock down anyone who disagrees with you (or anyone).
not sexist… just realistic. you’ve got to know we’re hard-wired differently; therefore we think and argue differently. I’m not saying anyone is more or less equal, just different thought processes. I don’t think I’m saying anything out of line here… You may think, as a moderator on this debate forum, that it’s imperative for a poster to prove his point with citings, and these may be your rules here. I’m just saying it’s not as important for me when arguing with someone, although I’m more than willing to comply to the board rules. Just saying…
The need for proof is not based on a refusal to accept contrary opinions; it is based on a desire for the truth. When a scientific journal editor rejects a submission on the basis that it is accompanied by no experimental data, the reason he is rejecting it is that the author has failed to prove his/her case, not because the conclusion is one the editor disagrees with.
And drop the tired bullshit about men liking evidence and women liking feelings. It is an insult to rational women everywhere. Go tell a woman scientist or philosopher that she shouldn’t argue for her position, because it is a masculine thing to do; see how far that gets you.
I’m not entirely sure why one follows automatically from the other. Honestly, I don’t see that asking someone to back up their argument is in any way particularly masculine or feminine. You can only say therefore if it is an automatic thing; I don’t see “being male” or “being female” as doing anything to this general argument style.
I’m pretty sure in fact that you are the first person i’ve ever seen bring this up on these boards. No other woman or man has claimed anything like this. Perhaps you might accept that it is a link only you see?
well on one hand they are suppose to do the work of God, OTOH they are not suppose to do it in their own effort and at the time they set. Many ‘religious types’ are too prepared to do their God’s work regardless of the desires or timing of their God.
Well God’s will will be done with or without us, God has won already. But God wants to use us in His work also.
RT going back to the submission of self to God, if you are interested here is a link to a audio sermon on submission to God with an example. Dr Stanley is very good at explaining matters of faith and I think he does a great job helping the unbeliever understand matters of faith.
The worst part is it plays into the worst sexist stereotypes. One is reminded of the quote from Samuel Johnson: “A woman reasoning is like a dog walking on two legs–it is not done well, but one is surprised to see it done at all.” Thanks for making every effort to hold your gender back in the 19th century, JohnnieEnigma. :rolleyes:
Of course it’s mostly a desire for the truth to understand the argument. Although I think there is a thread of truth in how the need for proof could be based on a refusal to accept contrary opinions; and sometimes there’s some real agression behind the demands as a way to intimidate or shut down someone. It’s not always the case, but it does indeed happen.
Alright, you missed the real point, so never mind.
Sure, maybe it’s me; maybe I’m so laisssez faire with another’s pov, politics or arguments that I don’t feel the need to push the issue beyond a mere curiosity.
No, I think Czarcasm had it right. Your argument here is one of the most explicitly sexist things I’ve ever read on the boards. Which, considering the nature of the boards, isn’t saying very much, but still.
Oh, I have no doubt that that’s the case. After all, if you didn’t think that, you’d be arguing with evidence!
My only problem with what you’ve said is your identification of arguing by giving evidence as a being particulaly masculine. That’s all. I do think it is pretty sexist, to be honest. I do not doubt that you believe it; I just think you’re wrong to identify your doing it as being because you’re a woman, no more than I disagree because i’m a man. Like i’ve said, you’re the first person to bring this up on these boards that i’ve seen, and I have seen women arguing by giving evidence and cites and men arguing from personal experience or with no huge interest in debate in pretty much equal measure to the other way around.
I can certainly provide evidence the next time I observe this; its more of a perception/intuition/observation kind of thing.
But it is masculine behavior. And maybe I’m wrong to identify it as such, but that’s how I perceive it.
Actually, this has happened to me in the past, and the demands came from a group of women who did not share my politics; they had a difficult time accepting me or anything I said mostly since my beliefs contridicted their own beliefs. So they would demand, ‘back it up’. But these women were mostly harassing trolls, so I’m not sure they should be considered as legitimate examples in this.
But this assumes that your perceptions, intuition, and observations are valid. I mean, I prefer the more harder evidence because all of these things from me would depend only on one person, me; why on earth should I accept my views alone when clearly, by the very fact that others disagree with me, I could be wrong?
And I perceive it otherwise - and therein lies the problem, because if we don’t use harder evidence, our views are of exactly equal merit. Except that if you value perceptions, intution, and observations - and more people disagree with you than agree, from their views - then by your own system of reasoning you are wrong in this case.
I appreciate your faith in me (see, i’m not against all faith!) and i’ll try to understand as best I can what you say. I have no doubt that what you tell me you believe to be true; I do assume that you are consistent, so while I disagree I don’t think you should worry about doing your faith disservice too much (though some i’d agree is inevitable if it is true).