Yet philosophers in the west would disagree with you. Some philosophers of religion (even those who are atheists) make their living out of talking about the existence of God and truth.

I hope my point got through... Just pleading for less shouting and more good exchanges.

What kind of good exchange is that exchange? Could you give an example, please?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JVRy7bR7zI

Here's a debate between two professional philosophers. One a Christian the other an atheist.

It's obvious they disagree with each other, but the fact that they argue based on logic and reason and that they actually engage each others arguments and not their personalities is something we all should learn from.

If I recall correctly, when this particular Christian philosopher went to the UK for the debate tour, Richard Dawkins refused to debate him despite the fact that he made many personal attacks on him. Yet atheist philosophers in the UK criticised Dawkins for doing so.

The idea I think, is respect.

Good write-up! Most people can tell the difference between right & wrong, good & bad.

Since we know how to differentiate, how does “respect” work? What does it mean to you?

More importantly, “How to earn respect at work and in the community where you live?”

Earning D.Litt / DBA / EngD / PhD qualifications? Through philanthropic contributions? Or both?

lol.

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or genuine (sorry), but my whole point about respect is that atheists/agnostics should respect theists as equal human beings with the same mental capacity as themselves.

What I seem to be seeing is posts here saying

"you theists are so stupid, you believe in xxx, xxx, xx,you will probably reply me with a stupid reply talking about your religion etcetc."

Sounds alot like

"You atheists are so stupid, demon possesd dimwits, you believe in xxxx, xxx, xxx, and you will probably say you don't but of course you do! I know you better than myself"

(okay my examples might be messed up, but I hope you get the idea)

I just think these exchanges are really unhelpful for both sides of the debate and is merely a display of hatred being hurled at one another without good exchanges in reasoning.

Even if there is *some* logic behind the arguments, it will often be hard to be focused on since there is so much hate going around.

Well, a lot of people have knowledge on a particular aspect, but not the EQ to properly convey the idea

Nothing is new under the sun because it has been predicted that most people can tell the right thing to do, such as...
or the bad things happen...
and yet...
Frankly speaking, you have been writing some interesting points about the “exemplary” case. In creationist & evolutionist, have you begun to notice that, when we force our ideals onto people, people tend to get stressed & strained (see Hooke's Law F=kx)? i.e. “It's impossible,” “We can't do it.” Either they just run away or they revolt against it, because that's the limit of reality. And as that occurs, you really can't help but just notice. Nonetheless, you still have to open a whole new way of thinking, which I have been “knocking on your door” since two posts.
No one is to be blamed at all. It wasn't your fault to begin with. It was also not creationist's & evolutionist's faults. In the process, things got complicated. A cruel trick played by fate. And if there is hate, we can only hate destiny for making a fool of us.

*gasps*

Young's Modulus?!!

It appears that you're engaging in RWI.
Guard your heart above all else, for it determines the course of your life (Proverbs 4:23).

(1) The Problem
Consider the following dialogue:
Nicky Wu: Do you not realize 1+1=3?

Daniel Wu: Do you not realize that you don't even know how the operation of addition is performed? You probably haven't learn Arithmetic before, or know how many types of operations are in the most elementary branch of mathematics. Not that I expect you to have learned elementary maths, but at least don't pretend to know what you don't.

Nicky Wu: It has nothing to do with the operation of addition. My point is maths is confusing, “operators (e.g +,-,*,/) are confusing”. I learned maths when I was a kid. To tell you the truth, it sucks even in Algebra and Calculus, and the maths actually teach me “imaginary number, i”. Yeah and I don't even understand what the purpose is, except more complex imaginations.

Next question: how do you think Nicky will react to Daniel's approach? Will he express joy and thankfulness at being shown how to do the maths better? Will Nicky enthusiastically commit to perform the operation of addition properly in the future? In fact, is he likely to make any positive long-term changes at all?

(2) The Mechanism
I didn’t think so and that’s where the Self-Demolish approach comes in. Whenever I’ve been in situations like above, here is how I have handled them, using the approach. If I were Daniel, I'll reconstruct Nicky’s argument in the fundamental form, without comments or critics, and clearly exposing its faulty parts, by showing:-



(3) The Procedure
This allows Nicky's argument to self-demolish. Sometimes the easiest way to guard your heart and to respect the arguer at the same time, is to reconstruct the intended argument generously into the fundamental form, and then let the argument destroy itself by having its flaw clearly exposed for all to see. Most of the time, the faulty reasoning can be recognized even by someone who has no knowledge in critical thinking.

What you are seeing here is the “respect” mechanics of a totally new way of having a difficult conversation;
i) a positive, blame-shift/criticism-free process that
ii) never puts the listener on the defensive,
iii) even in difficult or sensitive situations.

(4) What if I'm being personally attacked repeatedly?
Here are the subtleties, depending what role you are playing. But I advise you, don't go overboard unless cornered.
i) My Pastor said he's not stupid; he is just possessed by the spirit of Christopher Hitchens.
ii) My Biology teacher said he's not stupid; he is just devolving into a more “primitive” form over time.

I agree with most of what you have to say. If theists and non theists were to try to (and I note it needs work) argue in that way, that would be so much better.

I'm not necessarily speaking of myself only btw. Just pleading to the general public of LYN to at least try to have more reason and less emotions involved in their arguments.

Thanks for the detailed organization of your point btw.

So what is it that makes difficult messages so hard to give, and so much harder for people to accept? And why, given that we are all “reasonably smart” people, do most of us have such a low rate of success with it?

Well, many of us may be thinking that people just naturally resist being told what to do, especially when the message is not a good one. That is a simple and seemingly logical explanation. Surprisingly, it is also not a correct one. Because the reality is that some people can tell some people almost anything, and this fact drives how we learn to communicate with people in general.

So now, let’s try an entirely different approach. For starters, here are some of the things you can say to Mr. Advocate when you begin your discussion:

(1) “What kinds of things upset you about my religion?”
(2) “What does a good religion look like to you?” ... (I especially like this meaningful one)
(3) “Are there specific things you see wrong in my religion that we can clear up?”
(4) “What would you like to see my religion bring about in the future?”

Pardon me. i tried to go to RWI all about religion but i think it getting to just about 'you wrong, me right' and heavy stuffs like that. Some people just being clouded with their own opinion and exert to others. Didn't like it so i found here, hope just like to throw some question in my mind and get some discussion. I dont know if i fit here, but lets try.

My pondering:
What exactly do you guys think the meaning of being leftist, skeptic, agnostic and atheist? what it's really like to be one.
Do they all belong together in same group of believe/principle(i dont know what they called, it is some kind of believe, no?)
Whats the ultimate conclusion of these believe, atheism?

Sorry my word may seems offensive, it may sound judgmental, but no it is really some thought that i want to break.
Because from what i understand and believe that wasn't it because of being leftist, skeptic, agnostic that abraham, jesus, mohammad and even buddha - then become a preacher of their own religion - the major one. To extreme point, these so call prophets maybe embracing atheism at one point in a search of true god? i assume that you are well-informed of the life of these people. if you dont, then....

have you guys - the leftist, skeptic, agnostic and atheist has found enough knowledge to conclude the very own question - is there a supreme being? With our advance in knowledge and technology, let say about 150 years, the best - is it enough to conclude? or it is enough as enough!, i dont bother anymore.

so for us, the odds one - be it all above, whats the difference between us and abraham, jesus, mohammad, buddha? what make they can conclude to what they preach? what is it that trigger them to say, yes this is it.

Well here the theory i come out, for me, it is divine intervention. You see, divine intervention is pretty hard idea to grasp with nowadays, impossible we can say. im a science person, i think logically. So why divine intervention?, as i said before, in the known 'civilised' world, we come to space / vast universe consciousness, advance knowledge, theory of everything, like about 150 years ago. This knowledge is powerful enough that i think God said that's enough, these human can sooner or later found Me - can prove that I'm here. Ironically it produces more people like us - thats another topic, move on.

But how about others that dont have privilege to have this knowledge power. Able to wonder beyond the edge of milky way galaxy only to found billions more. Some biblical scientist said the most at least human civilization start around 6000years ago around 4000BC. So these 5850 years humans, isn't it unfair to them?? Dying in vain, without knowing. Life just to live , eat and shit and a bit better - to produce again? i believe in evolution(do you know orang utan has 97% identical DNA as human), so i don't mind if human exist way beyond that as that not my point here.

so i keep asking myself this question. The only answer i get is above, they need divine intervention. That's how i think its going to be fair to them.

So for us to say that's it, this is it, we have to dig deeper, which i'm afraid for some of us we just let loose ourselves in the fine line of ignorance and atheism. Have you? tell me how you can nail it?, what is it that make you come to your conclusion now? Point me where i think wrong or absolute No so that i can ponder again.

Carl Sagan on 4th dimension. Somewhat related to what im talking about. The most inspirational person.