Is it attacking a person to question their beliefs?

Some things don't need to be logical for me to believe it. That usually goes over not-too-well in threads like "Ask a *blank*".
 
Satya said:
Hm...so it follows intent of the questioner, how the questions are phrased, and what is at stake for the person being questioned.

As such, it does not seem like an attack to me to challenge the perceived infallibility of a person's beliefs as a way to demonstrate the baselessness of their offensive views.
Click to expand...


Satya, I see where you're coming from but think you might be missing the heart of what has been expressed in earlier posts.

Think of it this way. When there is an open debate on a college campus say regarding creation vs evolution for example:
[YOUTUBE]u6iEUanJbsw[/YOUTUBE]

Each opponent as agreed to the debate and acknowledged that the aim of the other person is to disprove their viewpoint. So when they argue with each other and present reasons why they think the other person is wrong, no one in their right mind would be able to say, "This person is attacking my belief system! Make them stop".

However, if one of these debaters walked into discussion group and "picked a fight" (was looking for an argument), the people there would be justified in saying, "Look, we didn't ask for you to come here and try to convince us that we're wrong."

I think it goes both ways though. People shouldn't get into debates/discussions/arguments that they don't intend to follow through on.

Edit: Sorry I change my original post. I wanted to restate what I said more consisely. Sorry if messed up anyone's follow-up post by changing the content in mine.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I think if you hold a view that others could perceive as offensive, and regard that view as infallible, then you invite criticism of that belief. You always have the option of keeping your views to yourself, but once you make that view known, it is open to criticism.
 
So what if people have views that offend you? In my opinion (and for the sake of this board), get over it. They are only views, ideas, and opinions. Actions are different and this isn't a karate class. Karate is about self defense and mounting attacks to beat your opponent. We're here on this forum to learn, grow, and relax. Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't debate or question other people's views (in fact that's one of my favorite parts of this forum), but we're not here to "kick each others asses" because we have beliefs that don't fit together perfectly.

Going off of what other people said, the debate/questioning beliefs really does lie in the questioner and the way the question was asked. Loaded questions show no respect for the other persons belief (and in my opinion) are nothing more than an attack. To have a debate there has to be a mutual respect. Both sides have to respect the other's opinion and acknowledge that their own beliefs may be wrong while the other person's beliefs may be right. A debate with people held blind and steadfast behind their own beliefs is nothing more than an arguement (in my opinion) and really isn't of value.
 
Satya said:
I think people are just afraid of having views which aren't supported by anything but their personal opinion, rationalization, or faith being exposed to the scrutiny of reason. Of course, that could just be me. What are your thoughts? I would prefer not to bring any specific threads into this discussion, I'm simply inquiring from a broad sense.
Click to expand...

Satya, I would like to first commend you by the way your posts have changed over the past. That said,
I totally disagree with the opinion you have that people are afraid. I also question reason as being the ultimate exposure to truth.
 
mf said:
So what if people have views that offend you? In my opinion (and for the sake of this board), get over it. They are only views, ideas, and opinions. Actions are different and this isn't a karate class. Karate is about self defense and mounting attacks to beat your opponent. We're here on this forum to learn, grow, and relax. Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't debate or question other people's views (in fact that's one of my favorite parts of this forum), but we're not here to "kick each others asses" because we have beliefs that don't fit together perfectly.

Going off of what other people said, the debate/questioning beliefs really does lie in the questioner and the way the question was asked. Loaded questions show no respect for the other persons belief (and in my opinion) are nothing more than an attack. To have a debate there has to be a mutual respect. Both sides have to respect the other's opinion and acknowledge that their own beliefs may be wrong while the other person's beliefs may be right. A debate with people held blind and steadfast behind their own beliefs is nothing more than an arguement (in my opinion) and really isn't of value.
Click to expand...

I'm simply stating my opinion. I don't think it is an attack to a person to challenge the perceived infallibility of their beliefs when they choose to publicly share those beliefs. Why is that opinion wrong?
 
Satya said:
Personally, I think if you hold a view that others could perceive as offensive, and regard that view as infallible, then you invite criticism of that belief. You always have the option of keeping your views to yourself, but once you make that view known, it is open to criticism.
Click to expand...

Satya, I would totally agree with you that views presented as infallible can be offensive to people. However, at this point, please reread my post - there is a difference between welcoming debate and merely holding a discussion about a topic.

Here's another thought. I can't think of any major belief system that, in addition to exclusive claims, demands that everyone be ok with their exclusive claims. No one has said other have to like it. No one has said 'Deal with it'. It seems like you're taking offense when no offense has been aimed at you. But isn't that what you're frustrated with people with? For taking offense when none was meant?
 
Wyst said:
Satya, I see where you're coming from but think you might be missing the heart of what has been expressed in earlier posts.

Think of it this way. When there is an open debate on a college campus say regarding creation vs evolution for example:
[YOUTUBE]u6iEUanJbsw[/YOUTUBE]

Each opponent as agreed to the debate and acknowledged that the aim of the other person is to disprove their viewpoint. So when they argue with each other and present reasons why they think the other person is wrong, no one in their right mind would be able to say, "This person is attacking my belief system! Make them stop".

However, if one of these debaters walked into discussion group and "picked a fight" (was looking for an argument), the people there would be justified in saying, "Look, we didn't ask for you to come here and try to convince us that we're wrong."

I think it goes both ways though. People shouldn't get into debates/discussions/arguments that they don't intend to follow through on.

Edit: Sorry I change my original post. I wanted to restate what I said more consisely. Sorry if messed up anyone's follow-up post by changing the content in mine.
Click to expand...

My paper is done!!!!

Now to more interesting things

I think this is a really interesting take on this. What you are saying about it. I agree. We could have a whole thread on discussion, debate, rules of debate. It depends on your purpose. This is great. I have to get ready for class to turn in my paper (I am drying the tears off it).

I will look at the video later.
 
Satya said:
Hm...so it follows intent of the questioner, how the questions are phrased, and what is at stake for the person being questioned.

Aiming to disprove a person's beliefs with loaded questions that could expose a person's incompetency in their worldview would be considered attacking whereas aiming to form a dialogue with tactful questions which do not endanger a person's self esteem would not be considered attacking.

But where is the fun in not making a person's views look dumb, particularly when some of their views are offensive to you? To borrow the analogy, if a yellow belt comes into a class pretending to know everything about martial arts and arguing that girls can't do them right, would it not be fitting for a female second degree black belt to kick their ass and set them right?

When people speak in terms of their political ideologies or religious faith, they make the following assumptions...

1. That their beliefs are infallible and anyone who does not agree with them is wrong.
2. That any view that they hold that could be perceived as offensive to others is justified regardless of lack of reason or evidence because they percieve their beliefs as infallible.

As such, it does not seem like an attack to me to challenge the perceived infallibility of a person's beliefs as a way to demonstrate the baselessness of their offensive views.
Click to expand...

That's assuming that their opinions are baseless. For things like religion, world views, political stands, etc., there really isn't necessarily a clear-cut answer. And some people find it difficult to physically explain their position, even if they know what they're think, and others simply don't like upfront confrontations, etc.

There are a lot of reasons why people don't like arguing beliefs. And yeah, when someone is being a total dick about their beliefs, it is very satisfying to drop 'em down a peg or two, but that's not always the case. In other cases, it's quite a bit dependent on opinions, so it can be hard to "rationally" argue something -- case in point, religion. It's not baseless -- it has a lot of meaning to some people -- but it can be hard to depend in a "scientific" way.
 
Satya said:
I'm simply stating my opinion. I don't think it is an attack to a person to challenge the perceived infallibility of their beliefs when they choose to publicly share those beliefs. Why is that opinion wrong?
Click to expand...
If my post looked like it was directed towards you it wasn't supposed to be, it was more of a general comment.

I agree with you that it's not an attack to question someone's beliefs, but for me the line between attack and debate is drawn at respect. To me, a person has to want to understand the other person's beliefs and try to get a feel where they are coming from (as far out there as their beliefs may sound) to have any respect for them. To see someone's arguement and immediately discredit it is in essence the same as holding a belief infallible. You (generally speaking) as so sure that the other person is wrong, that you're basically doing the same thing as them. You're holding your opinion is infallible and have no respect for their views. You don't want to learn anything from them, you just want to beat their beliefs into the dust. In my opinion, that's not debate, it's just arguing and it really has no value. There's nothing to be learned in arguing like that, it's just a power trip.
 
Wyst said:
Here's another thought. I can't think of any major belief system that, in addition to exclusive claims, demands that everyone be ok with their exclusive claims. No one has said other have to like it. No one has said 'Deal with it'. It seems like you're taking offense when no offense has been aimed at you. But isn't that what you're frustrated with people with? For taking offense when none was meant?
Click to expand...

I didn't want to bring up specifics, but lets take Christianity. It puts itself directly against gays. It argues that gays who choose to have a relationship are amoral and are going to hell for choosing against God's design/standard. Just about any Christian will tell you that much unless they hold an extremely liberal interpretation. Some might argue that as long as gays admit that they are evil doers by having a relationship with someone of the same sex they can get a free pass.

I find such a view to be inherently offensive.
 
Satya said:
I didn't want to bring up specifics, but lets take Christianity. It puts itself directly against gays. It argues that gays who choose to have a relationship are amoral and are going to hell for choosing against God's design/standard. Just about any Christian will tell you that much unless they hold an extremely liberal interpretation. Some might argue that as long as gays admit that they are evil doers by having a relationship with someone of the same sex they can get a free pass.

I find such a view to be inherently offensive.
Click to expand...
Well I guess it begs the question, do you believe in hell?
 
Satya said:
I didn't want to bring up specifics, but lets take Christianity. It puts itself directly against gays. It argues that gays who choose to have a relationship are amoral and are going to hell for choosing against God's design/standard. Just about any Christian will tell you that much unless they hold an extremely liberal interpretation. Some might argue that as long as gays admit that they are evil doers by having a relationship with someone of the same sex they can get a free pass.

I find such a view to be inherently offensive.
Click to expand...

So don't be a Christian? I know that's the simplest approach but, I can see where you would be weary with certain Christians trying to legislate their morality in a way to deny things from people. I dont think the government should be used to deny people things other than real criminal activity such as theft, rape, murder etc.
 
Satya said:
I'm simply stating my opinion. I don't think it is an attack to a person to challenge the perceived infallibility of their beliefs when they choose to publicly share those beliefs. Why is that opinion wrong?
Click to expand...

Just because someone shares their views publicly doesn't mean they've opened themselves up to getting their views attacked.

Along the same lines, just because a cat has a tail doesn't mean it's asking for it to be stepped on.
 
[YOUTUBE]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/j9SgDoypXcI&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/j9SgDoypXcI&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]
 
Satya said:
I didn't want to bring up specifics, but lets take Christianity. It puts itself directly against gays. It argues that gays who choose to have a relationship are amoral and are going to hell for choosing against God's design/standard. Just about any Christian will tell you that much unless they hold an extremely liberal interpretation. Some might argue that as long as gays admit that they are evil doers by having a relationship with someone of the same sex they can get a free pass.

I find such a view to be inherently offensive.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's not specific enough - the Bible pretty much says anyone who lies, cheats, steals, has impure thoughts or has an adulterous relationship is going to hell, too...and so it's really naming all of us. It's not about the actions, Satya; it's about the heart. And unfortunately much of Western Christianity forgets that part. Putting it all aside - it's best to see what the book is saying rather than what the people say. Unfortunately there are many who say a sexual act alone is the reason. The Phelps gang is going to hell for their hatred, if you really want to point fingers.

If you're going to argue, you have to argue in context. If you're going to have a valid argument, you have to take the exact scriptures in context and argue what they say to develop your argument against Christianity. Just saying, "you people believe this and this is why I think all of you are wrong" is not a valid argument. It's tearing down the person and not examining the religion itself. If you want to have a discussion about Christianity and gays, you'll have to read what the Bible says about mankind - including the gay population. If you don't, then you'll have arguments that sound as if you're angry at the people for believing something that they really don't believe.

You're going to have to understand the book to argue it, and not take hearsay as the argument's base. And you'll have to throw out preconceived ideas of the idiots out there, because yah, a lot are knuckleheads. The most vocal ones can be knuckleheads. But if the realization is we're all in the same doomed boat, then there is no one who is better than another. Which is what grace should be.

Anyway.

To really make it a debate, you have to find out what the truth is and ask your opponent to defend his truth. If you don't know what the truth is, then how can the argument be valid? Then you really are attacking the person because you're arguing on assumptions that that person might not agree with.
 
Satya said:
I didn't want to bring up specifics, but lets take Christianity. It puts itself directly against gays. It argues that gays who choose to have a relationship are amoral and are going to hell for choosing against God's design/standard. Just about any Christian will tell you that much unless they hold an extremely liberal interpretation. Some might argue that as long as gays admit that they are evil doers by having a relationship with someone of the same sex they can get a free pass.

I find such a view to be inherently offensive.
Click to expand...

I think there are sore spots on both sides of this argument. I am a Christian and I have a number of friends and acquaintance you struggle with homosexuality. I don't judge them. I don't look down on them. And I don't say 'you're going to hell'. If I did, I assure you, I wouldn't be roommates with the guy I'm rooming with now.

You are right to feel what you feel - no one should be oppressed. I certainly wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Howeer, you are applying a very right wing side of the Christian faith, known as the Christian Right to all of the Christian faith. To throw the Christian faith under the bus like that is unfair.
 
Billy said:
So don't be a Christian? I know that's the simplest approach but, I can see where you would be weary with certain Christians trying to legislate their morality in a way to deny things from people. I dont think the government should be used to deny people things other than real criminal activity such as theft, rape, murder etc.
Click to expand...
From the homosexual PoV though, you are right in pointing this out Billy. How do people expect gays to suck it up and not fight back with words when the view they are fighting does everything in its power to keep them out of 'regular' society?

I know Christians get tired of getting picked on verbally, but honestly why do you expect to not have angry people attacking your view when there are so many people who are accepted as being Christian who legally and illegally do almost anything to punish non believers? And this is in the USA, not somewhere in a third world regime.
 
arbygil said:
Actually, that's not specific enough - the Bible pretty much says anyone who lies, cheats, steals, has impure thoughts or has an adulterous relationship is going to hell, too...and so it's really naming all of us. It's not about the actions, Satya; it's about the heart. And unfortunately much of Western Christianity forgets that part. Putting it all aside - it's best to see what the book is saying rather than what the people say. Unfortunately there are many who say a sexual act alone is the reason. The Phelps gang is going to hell for their hatred, if you really want to point fingers.

If you're going to argue, you have to argue in context. If you're going to have a valid argument, you have to take the exact scriptures in context and argue what they say to develop your argument against Christianity. Just saying, "you people believe this and this is why I think all of you are wrong" is not a valid argument. It's tearing down the person and not examining the religion itself. If you want to have a discussion about Christianity and gays, you'll have to read what the Bible says about mankind - including the gay population. If you don't, then you'll have arguments that sound as if you're angry at the people for believing something that they really don't believe.

You're going to have to understand the book to argue it, and not take hearsay as the argument's base. And you'll have to throw out preconceived ideas of the idiots out there, because yah, a lot are knuckleheads. The most vocal ones can be knuckleheads. But if the realization is we're all in the same doomed boat, then there is no one who is better than another. Which is what grace should be.

Anyway.

To really make it a debate, you have to find out what the truth is and ask your opponent to defend his truth. If you don't know what the truth is, then how can the argument be valid? Then you really are attacking the person because you're arguing on assumptions that that person might not agree with.
Click to expand...
I technically agree with some of the ideas presented here. However; What good does reading the book do when there are very angry book readers in your front lawn looking to punish you for not accepting their interpretation?
 
Like mentioned above there is a difference between attacking and questioning.
I think that one should always be critical and question, because afterall, or at least I, do so in order to understand how the other person reasons.

Therefore, I don't think questioning is attacking. Though there is kind of a crossing between the two; when questioning it seems as though it can easily turn to a provoking tone and language towards someones 'out of the blue' beliefs. Whereas attacking would be concretely doing so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top