Separating the person from the person's claim. A MESSAGE TO ALL

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Separating the person from the person's claim. A MESSAGE TO ALL

Every so often a post will motivate me to remind people that there is a difference between a person, and a claim a person makes. And that there is a difference between human rights, which any decent person will agree with, and the SEPARATE SUBJECT, of being able to demonstrate a given claim as being credible.

Quite often, and not just at this site, but across the web, often people will take an attack on their claim as a personal attack on them. I've even seen atheists make this mistake.

Think about all the non theistic claims your friends or family or co-workers have made in your life. You have said to them "you got it wrong". Being "polite" about it, or being blunt and blasphemous about it DOES NOT change the fact that you think "they are full of it".

BUT in no way does that mean you hate the person. EVERYONE HERE at this site lives in a majority, in outside life, that do believe in gods, and or other claims.

WE all have family and friends and co-workers who make claims we find absurd. It would be impossible for us to function if we hated everyone who made claims we don't find credible and tried to isolate ourselves from the people we disagree with.

I would suggest to both the atheist and theist who are not comfortable with bluntness and blasphemy to go to websites with more strict rules or EVEN ON THIS WEBSITE put their debates in this section "Kill em with Kindness".

What is unreasonable is to set up a taboo out of fear of being offended. When ANYONE does that, including atheists,  it shuts down the debate and makes it a matter of protecting one's ego. And when people insist on doing that, even with strict rules on language, someone who is fragile will ALWAYS find something to be offended by, no matter how polite you try to be.

Kicking the tires of ANY CLAIM on any issue, not just theism, is how life gets tested. It is how absurdities like the earth being flat, and pseudo science like chronology and alchemy get debunked. Without kicking the tires humans would still be living in the caves.

I would suggest to BOTH the theist and atheist and anyone with a claim, instead of assuming hate when someone kicks your claim around, KNOW YOUR OWN COMFORT LEVEL, when visiting other websites besides like minded people.

I get ticked at atheists, for example, who come back here after visiting a Christian website acting shocked at their treatment there. What did you expect? And the same goes for visitors to sites like this. While some people and some websites are bigoted, not all believers hate you, merely because they falsely think you are going to burn in hell.

A good way to deal with disagreements FOR BOTH SIDES, is to not take it personally. And if you like the library. find a library type environment before posting. But don't demand that from everyone. Atheists are not all the same and neither are believers. We all have different comfort levels.

WE ARE ALL HUMAN BEINGS AND WE/THEY AND EVERYONE IN BETWEEN has family, friends and co-workers who have on subjects like politics, religion, history, science, trivial, mechanics, ect ect ect ect ANY GIVEN SUBJECT, we all have heard a claim from someone we like and thought to ourselves or said to them, "WTF?"

That is normal in life. We need to stop being afraid of the challenge and stop taking it personally when someone challenges us. If we never questioned set norms or set beliefs our species would still believe the earth was flat.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Excellent post, Brian. Well

Excellent post, Brian. Well said. I've often used the word 'beliefs' are not people, but I think your word 'claims' makes the distinction even more clear. A claim is an action, distinct from the person making the claim.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
You mean ..this really isn't

You mean ..this really isn't fox news?


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Every so often

Brian37 wrote:
Every so often a post will motivate me to remind people that there is a difference between a person, and a claim a person makes. And that there is a difference between human rights, which any decent person will agree with, and the SEPARATE SUBJECT, of being able to demonstrate a given claim as being credible.

 

Quite often, and not just at this site, but across the web, often people will take an attack on their claim as a personal attack on them. I've even seen atheists make this mistake.

 

Agreed Brian. People on various bits of the internet can't seem to make this distinction.

 

One of the things that I find to be quite annoying is when people post something that is a classical fallacy. Such arguments are pretty much automatically bad arguments. They also tend to be bad arguments which are subject to at least one fairly precise definition of a fallacy.

 

As an example, let's say that someone posts a straw man. Now those of us who are accustomed to regular discourse are aware of the definition of what that is. However, if I tell the poster that he just used a straw man, I have found that this is all too often taken by the individual as an accusation of some type of personal attack.

 

No and no. A personal attack is an ad hominem. A straw man is a distortion of another person's point when the distortion is refuted but the original point is never touched upon.

 

Now I am aware that I do not have the right audience here but let me say this anyway:

 

If you disagree with someone on the internet, that is fine. Say the words “I disagree” and give your reason for the disagreement. You have not attacked me personally (well, unless you have...).

 

If you think that you have the “real, ultimate killer argument” that proves why you are automatically right and whomever you disagree with is automatically wrong, well then you really need to think about the matter again before you post. Odds are that you are heading in the direction of a known fallacy.

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
We do perceive things

We do perceive things differently, even when we agree there are usually small things that may not click. It's what makes the world go round.

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


huxuecan
Posts: 4
Joined: 2010-09-05
User is offlineOffline
One of the things that I

One of the things that I find to be quite annoying is when people post something that is a classical fallacy. Such arguments are pretty much automatically bad arguments. They also tend to be bad arguments which are subject to at least one fairly precise definition of a fallacy.

As an example, let's say that someone posts a straw man. Now those of us who are accustomed to regular discourse are aware of the definition of what that is. However, if I tell the poster that he just used a straw man, I have found that this is all too often taken by the individual as an accusation of some type of personal attack.

(Edited by butterbattle: No advertising please. Refer to the RRS rules of conduct.

Rules of Conduct )


 


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I would

Brian37 wrote:

I would suggest to BOTH the theist and atheist and anyone with a claim, instead of assuming hate when someone kicks your claim around, KNOW YOUR OWN COMFORT LEVEL, when visiting other websites besides like minded people.

.

.

.

A good way to deal with disagreements FOR BOTH SIDES, is to not take it personally. And if you like the library. find a library type environment before posting. But don't demand that from everyone. Atheists are not all the same and neither are believers. We all have different comfort levels. 

Right on. MOL is a prime example of what not to do. He got a little huffy, so it seems, when every started telling he was wrong.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I separate the message from

I separate the message from the person carrying it every time I click "post reply". It's an obligatory coping skill...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
Every so often a post will motivate me to remind people that there is a difference between a person, and a claim a person makes. And that there is a difference between human rights, which any decent person will agree with, and the SEPARATE SUBJECT, of being able to demonstrate a given claim as being credible.

 

Quite often, and not just at this site, but across the web, often people will take an attack on their claim as a personal attack on them. I've even seen atheists make this mistake.

 

Agreed Brian. People on various bits of the internet can't seem to make this distinction.

 

One of the things that I find to be quite annoying is when people post something that is a classical fallacy. Such arguments are pretty much automatically bad arguments. They also tend to be bad arguments which are subject to at least one fairly precise definition of a fallacy.

 

As an example, let's say that someone posts a straw man. Now those of us who are accustomed to regular discourse are aware of the definition of what that is. However, if I tell the poster that he just used a straw man, I have found that this is all too often taken by the individual as an accusation of some type of personal attack.

 

No and no. A personal attack is an ad hominem. A straw man is a distortion of another person's point when the distortion is refuted but the original point is never touched upon.

 

Now I am aware that I do not have the right audience here but let me say this anyway:

 

If you disagree with someone on the internet, that is fine. Say the words “I disagree” and give your reason for the disagreement. You have not attacked me personally (well, unless you have...).

 

If you think that you have the “real, ultimate killer argument” that proves why you are automatically right and whomever you disagree with is automatically wrong, well then you really need to think about the matter again before you post. Odds are that you are heading in the direction of a known fallacy.

 

 

Good, glad you agree Daddy Warbucks. When Oliver asks for more all you do is kick em to the curb.

(Note to self: Did I think that, or type it?)

Answers, you know I am being silly, but in all seriousness it is nice to have atheists will all stripes and settings. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to get my Govment Cheese.

When you punch me, avoid my face, it is ugly enough.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37