One must believe he's right.

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

I know I’ve said it time and time again that we shouldn’t be biased, and many of you have disagreed. Not sure if there’s another term to describe the bias i’m talking about or not, but I do see how you have to be biased in alot of ways. The bias I usually use is that if an atheist saw another atheist failing to use logical sense to a Christian, he would point it out instead of just pointing it out when a Christian does it, visa versa.

But, when someone is in an debate, and anyone has ever changed their beliefs, the first person tell them they’re proud is a person of those beliefs, implying that he was right and he’s glad you saw this. I’ve cleared up many common Christian misconceptions, and alot of times when I do that person will say well I’m glad your not being so close-minded now, I was never close-minded in the first place, but it makes them warm in fuzzy inside to know they’re right. Is this not a form of Bias?

I think we can all admit we believe our sides are correct whether you’re sure about your beliefs or not. And since I believe for the most part this is true. If you ever want to conform someone to your ‘side’ it will be highly doubtful being biased in any form is going to help your cause, and I think I proudly say we all have a cause.

And while I have the time, I think I’d like to show these causes as I see them and remember this is only for the people who do debate often:

Atheist: They feel others are idiots for believing in Magical powers and want to glorify their own cause by proving them wrong. Or they are an atheist at heart but they are willing to understand religion, and if they do gladly join it. Or they’re insecure about what they believe and want to justify through debate and with others of the same beliefs. Or they think they are doing religious people a favor and want to prove them wrong to relieve them of the guidelines in which they have in their life so they can focuse more on themselves and what they want. Please let me know if I’ve missed anything.

Agnostics: Can sometimes be the smartest or the most ignorant. Debating for them results in knowledge, whether they are dumb or intelligent they are intelligent enough to know there may be something they’ve missed from all beliefs. Or they also can have qualities of proving everyone else wrong no matter what side, for the benefit of themselves.

Theist: Believe in their God because mommy said so. Or they believe out of good reason and understanding to. Or they can also be in it for pride but deep down that shouldnt’ be the cause. Or they may want to learn from others but they still believe a God exists. Or the last and greatest cause, they do it to win souls for God.

In all of these categories, only one has a ultimate reason for debating. The other two can be subjective.

Now I know within these categories you can use all of these reasons. But as I said one category has but one most important reason from one doctrinal law.

My purpose for this post? Winning souls for Christ, and I’m not afraid to say it because if I said “heck if I know I’m just trying to get people to think” I’d be lying. We all can admit that we must have some cause for why we post, rather than just getting people to think, we have a motive of some sort.

2

There is that saying ‘We gravitate towards happiness’ or something like that.

Anyways, I think seeing yourself as right is part and parcel to that view. Some do it, but for the majority of people, they are not happy in thinking they are incorrect, and thus adopt the view that they are in fact correct. The middle ground, to continually not know, seems to be an even more dangerous place – at least psychologically.

One thing I noticed was the mention of ‘magical’ or ‘unnatural’ powers pertaining to atheists. I feel this to be slightly off because of people that follow something like Wicca.

3

I wrote in another thread recently that our acknowledgement that we may be wrong has to be kept seperate from our reasoning- that is, when we think about something, and try to solve a problem or work out an argument, we can only procede as though everything we know is correct. Admitting that we may be wrong is more of an ettiquette thing.

4

Yeah shouldn’t have used magical or unnatural. Yeah, I agree that it is very dangerously psychologically not to believe your right at least most of the time on something.

5

I agree with that as well Uccicore. Just as any atheist or theist argues, they are arguing for that belief or side, so in that way we must be biased I believe.

6

So with this being said, can you blame someone for behaving as if they’re so right? If they’re denying real truths, than you have some leverage, but as for someone believing they are so right, who can blame anyone? That’s the reason they are debating is it not?

7

Well, I said admitting you might be wrong is just ettiquette, but ettiquette is quite quite important in a debate. When I construct my views, my arguments, the “I might be wrong” will have no place in them. But unless I’m your teacher or your Dad, my presentation to you very well might, especially if I’m after dialogue, and not monologue. After all, if it’s a discussion, the assumption is, the other person has something to say that I want to hear. I mean, other than, “Yes, Uccisore. Correct as always, Uccisore.”

8

It’s ettiquette, but ettiquette doesn’t always have to be followed, just makes you look bad if you don’t, and sometimes even stupid.

But lets say for instance, not picking on him, but Mick. As I know Mick never doubts himself, or yet that I’ve seen. There’s nothing wrong with that unless he can be proven wrong, then he should admit it. Someone can really only be proven wrong if there is absolute truth, which I believe there is. But I was under the impression that most atheist don’t believe in absolute truth, and if they don’t, than why persecute Mick? Just because he doesn’t believe he’s wrong? Sure there are times when he is wrong and he needs to surrender, if he denies that without proof to the contrary, than we have good reason to call him a close-minded Christian.

9

Well, I think the problem starts before that. If he never doubts himself, why is he talking to other people? To preach to them? To take the authority/educator role? There’s nothing wrong with that role- except that nobody here wants it, and nobody here seems to respect him as a proper person to be in that position.
So if he’s not supposed to be your boss, telling you how it is while you listen and listen good, what is he supposed to be doing?

10

Why can’t he just reveal truths? Sometimes all he has to do is post words whether they are relative or not and people can gain from it. I understand what you’re saying, but I’m not so sure I can dislike someone because they preach. We all preach, we all profess, some just hide it bettter than others. Bad etiquette yes, but that doesn’t make someone wrong, just disliked.

11

Oh, I totally agree. We aren’t talking about whether or not someone is correct or incorrect, not anymore. I’m just saying correctness is not the only consideration in a discussion, by a long shot. First things first, the people in a discussion have to agree about why they are having it. If I come for a debate, and get a sermon, I won’t listen or participate- and then the preacher doesn’t get anything either.

12

Just out of curiosity, do you think a person can successfully argue something they don’t believe? For instance, there are many people who believe in God, but admit that it’s impossible to know (to be correct) whether God exists or not. They often have theistic beliefs, but argue agnosticism whenever they’re in a debate. Does the fact that they don’t know themselves to be correct but believe their views about God to be correct make their skeptical position ((God can’t be proven or disproven, what they argue) but I believe) irrational? Is fiedism irrational?

13

29,

Remember how I said that not being sure of anything, ever is dangerous psychologically? Well I feel that it’s because there is no dichotomy going on there.

So in regards to your statement about:

I wouldn’t say you can ‘blame’ them per say, but if someone’s brain functions on the basis of -always- being right, I’d say that they punish themselves by the type of convoluted thought patterns which would start to emerge. Mick is a perfect example – they just start to sound insane.

We need checks and balances. Personally I like being totally wrong about something once and a while, it’s sort of invigorating. As it pertains to faith or ‘disputable facts’ I think that most Christians would admit that they learn about their faith, and to learn you must so be wrong in a certain sense.

Again not to pick on Mick, (but to be honest I find him extremely annoying) but he is a perfect example of someone who seems to be stuck in a rather stagnant mental state. No sign of introspection or doubt at all.

This is becoming an increasingly difficult question so I guess I’ll end by saying that although it doesn’t seem it, the only real truths and falsities we experience are our own. We utilize truth-conditions and references to engage in these conversations, but in the end it’s all about taking in data and advancing your own world view. To advance you -must- doubt as flaw is inherent to evolution.

14

08.19.06.1423

That’s a bold motive to have in a philosophy forum. Good luck.

Speaking of bold though, you defined the “theist” catagory as being exclusively Christian. Don’t you think that’s a bit arrogant? Pardon my comments but it’s an observation I thought was critical to your attempt to catagorize debators as you see them.

15

Well it maybe a bold move, but it’s a move, a motive just like you have.

I really don’t care what it sounded like. I was simply as you said categorizing debators as I see them, just as you observed me as being arrogant; which Is false. I’m not sure how exactly I defined theist as being exclusively Christian…not sure where you’re going with that. But I will say Thanks for the luck.

16

Thanks sage. I think you have hit the nail on the head. This is a philosophy forum for genuine debate and discussion. Not a soapbox for scripture quoting christians who think they are right 100% of the time because the bible says so. Lets get back to debating and not preaching.

17

Oldphil, you are very close-minded. I don’t even think you would know a hammer and a nail if a nail was hammered into you.

18

Thanks Club29 for proving a point…Christians advocate forgiveness…love thy neighbor etc…You on the other hand refer to driving a nail into me…hmmmm not very christian like.

:imp:

19

Just an anology, maybe you should grow up and quit taking things so seriously. You’ve just proven the point I’ve discussed many times as well, so thanks. :slight_smile:

By the way if you’d actually read a post for once instead of making irrelevant additional comments to others who say what you wished you would have said, you’d see this post is about how we all have some motive behind our reason for debating, everyone has at least one motive. I give you sincerity, and you and sage strike back with these misinterpretted rants and assumptions.

20

08.19.06.1424

Excuse me Club, but what I said was pretty valid. I was making a very important correction to your post. It wasn’t an assumption, it was a consideration that needed to be made. If you’re going to classify people, it should be done with a degree of courtesy.

I’m not trying to be mean (which I’m sure that’s how I’m coming off), I’m trying to help.