Total Posts:78|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

People, not labels

Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2014 9:03:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I can't help notice how compartmentalizing people seems to be seen as a credible replacement for reasoned responses. People here are evolutionists, theists, atheists, realists, presuppositionalists, materialists, liberals, radicals, extremists, republicans, libertarians, democrats etc.

And none of that is true. We're people. Those of us who think the least likely subscribe to packaged beliefs. Those who think more, likely pick and choose individual beliefs rather than someone else's packaged deals. Even among the religious we find those with extraordinarily personal ideas. And religion is really more about adopting someone elses idea without question, and often, with little examination.

But I keep seeing this practice of simply labeling someone rather than refuting their ideas. I once provided a list of Jesus mythicists (after being told that no one believes Jesus is a myth), and the response was; "Those people were all extremists, liberals and radicals!"

So?

What if they were? How does that defeat their stance - more importantly - how does it defeat the reason for that stance? Anyone can find some category in which to try to pigeonhole anybody else. The vast majority of us are "gravitationalists". Does that somehow show that our political preferences are wrong? There's more to debating someone than trying to label them. And if you try to defeat them by finding labels to pin on them ("Lables" meaning categorized beliefs"), then you mustn't have a valid argument against the claims and statements they've made.

So am I wrong about that?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2014 9:12:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/4/2014 9:03:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
I can't help notice how compartmentalizing people seems to be seen as a credible replacement for reasoned responses. People here are evolutionists, theists, atheists, realists, presuppositionalists, materialists, liberals, radicals, extremists, republicans, libertarians, democrats etc.

And none of that is true. We're people. Those of us who think the least likely subscribe to packaged beliefs. Those who think more, likely pick and choose individual beliefs rather than someone else's packaged deals. Even among the religious we find those with extraordinarily personal ideas. And religion is really more about adopting someone elses idea without question, and often, with little examination.

But I keep seeing this practice of simply labeling someone rather than refuting their ideas. I once provided a list of Jesus mythicists (after being told that no one believes Jesus is a myth), and the response was; "Those people were all extremists, liberals and radicals!"

So?

What if they were? How does that defeat their stance - more importantly - how does it defeat the reason for that stance? Anyone can find some category in which to try to pigeonhole anybody else. The vast majority of us are "gravitationalists". Does that somehow show that our political preferences are wrong? There's more to debating someone than trying to label them. And if you try to defeat them by finding labels to pin on them ("Lables" meaning categorized beliefs"), then you mustn't have a valid argument against the claims and statements they've made.

So am I wrong about that?

People can't control that which they can't contain.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2014 9:28:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/4/2014 9:03:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
I can't help notice how compartmentalizing people seems to be seen as a credible replacement for reasoned responses. People here are evolutionists, theists, atheists, realists, presuppositionalists, materialists, liberals, radicals, extremists, republicans, libertarians, democrats etc.

And none of that is true. We're people. Those of us who think the least likely subscribe to packaged beliefs. Those who think more, likely pick and choose individual beliefs rather than someone else's packaged deals. Even among the religious we find those with extraordinarily personal ideas. And religion is really more about adopting someone elses idea without question, and often, with little examination.

But I keep seeing this practice of simply labeling someone rather than refuting their ideas. I once provided a list of Jesus mythicists (after being told that no one believes Jesus is a myth), and the response was; "Those people were all extremists, liberals and radicals!"

So?

What if they were? How does that defeat their stance - more importantly - how does it defeat the reason for that stance? Anyone can find some category in which to try to pigeonhole anybody else. The vast majority of us are "gravitationalists". Does that somehow show that our political preferences are wrong? There's more to debating someone than trying to label them. And if you try to defeat them by finding labels to pin on them ("Lables" meaning categorized beliefs"), then you mustn't have a valid argument against the claims and statements they've made.

So am I wrong about that?

Nope, you are perfectly correct about that.
Some people have a habit of filing things away into boxes and they do the same to all the people in the world.
It's their way of being tidy and organized. They get frustrated when something or someone does not fit one of their boxes. They also find it difficult to think outside their boxes.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2014 9:37:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/4/2014 9:28:59 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/4/2014 9:03:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
I can't help notice how compartmentalizing people seems to be seen as a credible replacement for reasoned responses. People here are evolutionists, theists, atheists, realists, presuppositionalists, materialists, liberals, radicals, extremists, republicans, libertarians, democrats etc.

And none of that is true. We're people. Those of us who think the least likely subscribe to packaged beliefs. Those who think more, likely pick and choose individual beliefs rather than someone else's packaged deals. Even among the religious we find those with extraordinarily personal ideas. And religion is really more about adopting someone elses idea without question, and often, with little examination.

But I keep seeing this practice of simply labeling someone rather than refuting their ideas. I once provided a list of Jesus mythicists (after being told that no one believes Jesus is a myth), and the response was; "Those people were all extremists, liberals and radicals!"

So?

What if they were? How does that defeat their stance - more importantly - how does it defeat the reason for that stance? Anyone can find some category in which to try to pigeonhole anybody else. The vast majority of us are "gravitationalists". Does that somehow show that our political preferences are wrong? There's more to debating someone than trying to label them. And if you try to defeat them by finding labels to pin on them ("Lables" meaning categorized beliefs"), then you mustn't have a valid argument against the claims and statements they've made.

So am I wrong about that?

Nope, you are perfectly correct about that.
Some people have a habit of filing things away into boxes and they do the same to all the people in the world.
It's their way of being tidy and organized. They get frustrated when something or someone does not fit one of their boxes. They also find it difficult to think outside their boxes.
And before anyone makes the accusation I should say, "guilty as charged".

But I don't think it's frustration with finding someone who doesn't fit in a box. I think it's an avoidance of the issue. If I call them a "radical" or an "extremist", then I don't have to address their position, or their reasons for holding that position. It's a lazy way to avoid supporting a contrary stance. And perhaps, an admission that you can't.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2014 10:30:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/4/2014 9:37:15 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/4/2014 9:28:59 PM, Skyangel wrote:

Nope, you are perfectly correct about that.
Some people have a habit of filing things away into boxes and they do the same to all the people in the world.
It's their way of being tidy and organized. They get frustrated when something or someone does not fit one of their boxes. They also find it difficult to think outside their boxes.
And before anyone makes the accusation I should say, "guilty as charged".

But I don't think it's frustration with finding someone who doesn't fit in a box. I think it's an avoidance of the issue. If I call them a "radical" or an "extremist", then I don't have to address their position, or their reasons for holding that position. It's a lazy way to avoid supporting a contrary stance. And perhaps, an admission that you can't.

The fact is that people are either mature or immature or somewhere in between on the way to maturity and some never seem to mature mentally at all.
Some have recognized mental disabilities and I think some have unrecognized mental disabilities.
In some people faith seems to be more important than reason.
Some appear to be too lazy to think for themselves so they rely on what they have been taught as being true and don't bother questioning it.
To support or at least understand opposite views you need to actually stand in the place of the person who is holding that view or get "into their shoes" as it were. That is not an easy thing to do for most people, especially when the "shoe" does not fit or feel comfortable for them.
The fact is that opposite views support each other and make up the whole picture like the front and back view of a house is needed to support the whole house, or the front yard and back yard make up the whole block of land, or the Ying and the Yang make the whole circle. Opposites cannot exist without each other.
The trick is finding the balance between them instead of going overboard one way or the other.

The world is filled with reality which includes fantasy and many get lost in the fantasy area of life. Others get so lost in physical reality that they forget there is more to life than just chemicals and chemical reactions.
Imagination, mind and conscience is not just about chemical reactions.

When you read these words on a page, you imagine the things I am describing to you. Are the words you read causing chemical reactions in your brain? I doubt it. Your own imagination is visualising a house, land, ying yang symbols etc.
What you perceive is causing your brain to work which obviously creates chemical actions and reactions in your mind but try placing chemicals in front of an internet forum. What affect does that have? Obviously none at all. Therefore words do not affect chemicals something else in you is being affected by reading words. That something else is your spirit or your conscience or your essence or your perception or the part of you which is aware that you are you and aware that words are words and nothing more than symbols on a screen or a page. Symbols have no power to hurt your feelings. It is the way people personally perceive the symbols which makes them feel good or bad about what they perceive and that good or bad feeling then causes them to react with the same kind of words which convey hurt or understanding or whatever else they have perceived.

Anyway, the point is that you are made up of far more than just chemical reactions. You have a spirit within your body regardless of whether you label that as consciousness or perception or just self awareness. It is not chemicals which are self aware. It is not chemical reactions which are self aware. It is your own personal perception of yourself and your own body. Once that self awareness and whatever keeps you automatically breathing leaves your body, you are dead, no longer self aware but the chemical reactions will continue in your body till you are dust.
To believe you are nothing more than a chemical reaction is to deny your own self-awareness or spirit. They are the same thing only with different labels.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2014 10:38:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/4/2014 9:03:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
I can't help notice how compartmentalizing people seems to be seen as a credible replacement for reasoned responses. People here are evolutionists, theists, atheists, realists, presuppositionalists, materialists, liberals, radicals, extremists, republicans, libertarians, democrats etc.

And none of that is true. We're people. Those of us who think the least likely subscribe to packaged beliefs. Those who think more, likely pick and choose individual beliefs rather than someone else's packaged deals. Even among the religious we find those with extraordinarily personal ideas. And religion is really more about adopting someone elses idea without question, and often, with little examination.

But I keep seeing this practice of simply labeling someone rather than refuting their ideas. I once provided a list of Jesus mythicists (after being told that no one believes Jesus is a myth), and the response was; "Those people were all extremists, liberals and radicals!"

So?

What if they were? How does that defeat their stance - more importantly - how does it defeat the reason for that stance? Anyone can find some category in which to try to pigeonhole anybody else. The vast majority of us are "gravitationalists". Does that somehow show that our political preferences are wrong? There's more to debating someone than trying to label them. And if you try to defeat them by finding labels to pin on them ("Lables" meaning categorized beliefs"), then you mustn't have a valid argument against the claims and statements they've made.

So am I wrong about that?

Isaiah 25
6: On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of fat things, a feast of wine on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wine on the lees well refined.
7: And he will destroy on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations.
8: He will swallow up death for ever, and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth; for the LORD has spoken.
9: It will be said on that day, "Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, that he might save us. This is the LORD; we have waited for him; let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation."

God doesn't label His created people within His mind. He compares us to His beasts, grass, sand on the beach, etc.

Let us be glad and rejoice that we're ALL His people who will be saved from this world as their flesh perishes, the flesh that they thought was their reality.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2014 10:43:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/4/2014 10:38:46 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/4/2014 9:03:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
I can't help notice how compartmentalizing people seems to be seen as a credible replacement for reasoned responses. People here are evolutionists, theists, atheists, realists, presuppositionalists, materialists, liberals, radicals, extremists, republicans, libertarians, democrats etc.

And none of that is true. We're people. Those of us who think the least likely subscribe to packaged beliefs. Those who think more, likely pick and choose individual beliefs rather than someone else's packaged deals. Even among the religious we find those with extraordinarily personal ideas. And religion is really more about adopting someone elses idea without question, and often, with little examination.

But I keep seeing this practice of simply labeling someone rather than refuting their ideas. I once provided a list of Jesus mythicists (after being told that no one believes Jesus is a myth), and the response was; "Those people were all extremists, liberals and radicals!"

So?

What if they were? How does that defeat their stance - more importantly - how does it defeat the reason for that stance? Anyone can find some category in which to try to pigeonhole anybody else. The vast majority of us are "gravitationalists". Does that somehow show that our political preferences are wrong? There's more to debating someone than trying to label them. And if you try to defeat them by finding labels to pin on them ("Lables" meaning categorized beliefs"), then you mustn't have a valid argument against the claims and statements they've made.

So am I wrong about that?

Isaiah 25
6: On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of fat things, a feast of wine on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wine on the lees well refined.
7: And he will destroy on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations.
8: He will swallow up death for ever, and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth; for the LORD has spoken.
9: It will be said on that day, "Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, that he might save us. This is the LORD; we have waited for him; let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation."

God doesn't label His created people within His mind. He compares us to His beasts, grass, sand on the beach, etc.

Let us be glad and rejoice that we're ALL His people who will be saved from this world as their flesh perishes, the flesh that they thought was their reality.

Marrow and wine? Gross!

Don't worry. That check is in the mail.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2014 10:51:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/4/2014 10:43:51 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/4/2014 10:38:46 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/4/2014 9:03:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
I can't help notice how compartmentalizing people seems to be seen as a credible replacement for reasoned responses. People here are evolutionists, theists, atheists, realists, presuppositionalists, materialists, liberals, radicals, extremists, republicans, libertarians, democrats etc.

And none of that is true. We're people. Those of us who think the least likely subscribe to packaged beliefs. Those who think more, likely pick and choose individual beliefs rather than someone else's packaged deals. Even among the religious we find those with extraordinarily personal ideas. And religion is really more about adopting someone elses idea without question, and often, with little examination.

But I keep seeing this practice of simply labeling someone rather than refuting their ideas. I once provided a list of Jesus mythicists (after being told that no one believes Jesus is a myth), and the response was; "Those people were all extremists, liberals and radicals!"

So?

What if they were? How does that defeat their stance - more importantly - how does it defeat the reason for that stance? Anyone can find some category in which to try to pigeonhole anybody else. The vast majority of us are "gravitationalists". Does that somehow show that our political preferences are wrong? There's more to debating someone than trying to label them. And if you try to defeat them by finding labels to pin on them ("Lables" meaning categorized beliefs"), then you mustn't have a valid argument against the claims and statements they've made.

So am I wrong about that?

Isaiah 25
6: On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of fat things, a feast of wine on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wine on the lees well refined.
7: And he will destroy on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations.
8: He will swallow up death for ever, and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth; for the LORD has spoken.
9: It will be said on that day, "Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, that he might save us. This is the LORD; we have waited for him; let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation."

God doesn't label His created people within His mind. He compares us to His beasts, grass, sand on the beach, etc.

Let us be glad and rejoice that we're ALL His people who will be saved from this world as their flesh perishes, the flesh that they thought was their reality.

Marrow and wine? Gross!

Don't worry. That check is in the mail.

LOL !!!!!
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2014 11:17:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/4/2014 9:03:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
I can't help notice how compartmentalizing people seems to be seen as a credible replacement for reasoned responses. People here are evolutionists, theists, atheists, realists, presuppositionalists, materialists, liberals, radicals, extremists, republicans, libertarians, democrats etc.

And none of that is true. We're people. Those of us who think the least likely subscribe to packaged beliefs. Those who think more, likely pick and choose individual beliefs rather than someone else's packaged deals. Even among the religious we find those with extraordinarily personal ideas. And religion is really more about adopting someone elses idea without question, and often, with little examination.

But I keep seeing this practice of simply labeling someone rather than refuting their ideas. I once provided a list of Jesus mythicists (after being told that no one believes Jesus is a myth), and the response was; "Those people were all extremists, liberals and radicals!"

So?

What if they were? How does that defeat their stance - more importantly - how does it defeat the reason for that stance? Anyone can find some category in which to try to pigeonhole anybody else. The vast majority of us are "gravitationalists". Does that somehow show that our political preferences are wrong? There's more to debating someone than trying to label them. And if you try to defeat them by finding labels to pin on them ("Lables" meaning categorized beliefs"), then you mustn't have a valid argument against the claims and statements they've made.

So am I wrong about that?

No, you're absolutely right.

I think thay maybe the reason for the labels is not to convince the individual but to win the audience in some cases. I can't see that as very sportsman like, or moral for that matter.

I also think some people place labels because they are prejudice from the get go. Or perhaps lack the empathy to understand that we aren't all the same and automatically assume they are dealing with a label.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 12:35:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/4/2014 11:17:30 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/4/2014 9:03:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
I can't help notice how compartmentalizing people seems to be seen as a credible replacement for reasoned responses. People here are evolutionists, theists, atheists, realists, presuppositionalists, materialists, liberals, radicals, extremists, republicans, libertarians, democrats etc.

And none of that is true. We're people. Those of us who think the least likely subscribe to packaged beliefs. Those who think more, likely pick and choose individual beliefs rather than someone else's packaged deals. Even among the religious we find those with extraordinarily personal ideas. And religion is really more about adopting someone elses idea without question, and often, with little examination.

But I keep seeing this practice of simply labeling someone rather than refuting their ideas. I once provided a list of Jesus mythicists (after being told that no one believes Jesus is a myth), and the response was; "Those people were all extremists, liberals and radicals!"

So?

What if they were? How does that defeat their stance - more importantly - how does it defeat the reason for that stance? Anyone can find some category in which to try to pigeonhole anybody else. The vast majority of us are "gravitationalists". Does that somehow show that our political preferences are wrong? There's more to debating someone than trying to label them. And if you try to defeat them by finding labels to pin on them ("Lables" meaning categorized beliefs"), then you mustn't have a valid argument against the claims and statements they've made.

So am I wrong about that?

No, you're absolutely right.

I think thay maybe the reason for the labels is not to convince the individual but to win the audience in some cases. I can't see that as very sportsman like, or moral for that matter.

I also think some people place labels because they are prejudice from the get go. Or perhaps lack the empathy to understand that we aren't all the same and automatically assume they are dealing with a label.

Most people need to have support from a group who have the same fears as they have. This gives them some kind of peace while their with the group. When they are alone, their fears can overwhelm them. I see this a lot when I get a Christian alone and talk to them about the knowledge of God that I possess that they can't understand.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 12:48:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/4/2014 9:03:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
I can't help notice how compartmentalizing people seems to be seen as a credible replacement for reasoned responses. People here are evolutionists, theists, atheists, realists, presuppositionalists, materialists, liberals, radicals, extremists, republicans, libertarians, democrats etc.

And none of that is true. We're people. Those of us who think the least likely subscribe to packaged beliefs. Those who think more, likely pick and choose individual beliefs rather than someone else's packaged deals. Even among the religious we find those with extraordinarily personal ideas. And religion is really more about adopting someone elses idea without question, and often, with little examination.

But I keep seeing this practice of simply labeling someone rather than refuting their ideas. I once provided a list of Jesus mythicists (after being told that no one believes Jesus is a myth), and the response was; "Those people were all extremists, liberals and radicals!"

So?

What if they were? How does that defeat their stance - more importantly - how does it defeat the reason for that stance? Anyone can find some category in which to try to pigeonhole anybody else. The vast majority of us are "gravitationalists". Does that somehow show that our political preferences are wrong? There's more to debating someone than trying to label them. And if you try to defeat them by finding labels to pin on them ("Lables" meaning categorized beliefs"), then you mustn't have a valid argument against the claims and statements they've made.

So am I wrong about that?

Hmmmmm......people are sinners who need to be saved from Hell. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. We all deserve to die and burn in Hell. Does that sufficiently decompartmentalize everbody for you? I bet you hate it, don't you? People are not sinners, right? We never really did anyting wrong, we were only being human which is imperfect, right?
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 12:48:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 12:35:36 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/4/2014 11:17:30 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/4/2014 9:03:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
I can't help notice how compartmentalizing people seems to be seen as a credible replacement for reasoned responses. People here are evolutionists, theists, atheists, realists, presuppositionalists, materialists, liberals, radicals, extremists, republicans, libertarians, democrats etc.

And none of that is true. We're people. Those of us who think the least likely subscribe to packaged beliefs. Those who think more, likely pick and choose individual beliefs rather than someone else's packaged deals. Even among the religious we find those with extraordinarily personal ideas. And religion is really more about adopting someone elses idea without question, and often, with little examination.

But I keep seeing this practice of simply labeling someone rather than refuting their ideas. I once provided a list of Jesus mythicists (after being told that no one believes Jesus is a myth), and the response was; "Those people were all extremists, liberals and radicals!"

So?

What if they were? How does that defeat their stance - more importantly - how does it defeat the reason for that stance? Anyone can find some category in which to try to pigeonhole anybody else. The vast majority of us are "gravitationalists". Does that somehow show that our political preferences are wrong? There's more to debating someone than trying to label them. And if you try to defeat them by finding labels to pin on them ("Lables" meaning categorized beliefs"), then you mustn't have a valid argument against the claims and statements they've made.

So am I wrong about that?

No, you're absolutely right.

I think thay maybe the reason for the labels is not to convince the individual but to win the audience in some cases. I can't see that as very sportsman like, or moral for that matter.

I also think some people place labels because they are prejudice from the get go. Or perhaps lack the empathy to understand that we aren't all the same and automatically assume they are dealing with a label.

Most people need to have support from a group who have the same fears as they have. This gives them some kind of peace while their with the group. When they are alone, their fears can overwhelm them. I see this a lot when I get a Christian alone and talk to them about the knowledge of God that I possess that they can't understand.

And it's a funny thing that once we get into a group where we think we have found like minded people is when we start hurting each other.

This is one of my favorite topics posted to this forum so far. I find it fascinating that the people here don't want to discuss the labels we place on each other. What I think is even more interesting are the labels we place on ourselves. But no one really wants to remove the labels. If they did they'd be willing to talk about them. I suppose it's easier to ignore them and keep debating things that can't be resolved.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 1:02:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 12:48:29 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 11/4/2014 9:03:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
I can't help notice how compartmentalizing people seems to be seen as a credible replacement for reasoned responses. People here are evolutionists, theists, atheists, realists, presuppositionalists, materialists, liberals, radicals, extremists, republicans, libertarians, democrats etc.

And none of that is true. We're people. Those of us who think the least likely subscribe to packaged beliefs. Those who think more, likely pick and choose individual beliefs rather than someone else's packaged deals. Even among the religious we find those with extraordinarily personal ideas. And religion is really more about adopting someone elses idea without question, and often, with little examination.

But I keep seeing this practice of simply labeling someone rather than refuting their ideas. I once provided a list of Jesus mythicists (after being told that no one believes Jesus is a myth), and the response was; "Those people were all extremists, liberals and radicals!"

So?

What if they were? How does that defeat their stance - more importantly - how does it defeat the reason for that stance? Anyone can find some category in which to try to pigeonhole anybody else. The vast majority of us are "gravitationalists". Does that somehow show that our political preferences are wrong? There's more to debating someone than trying to label them. And if you try to defeat them by finding labels to pin on them ("Lables" meaning categorized beliefs"), then you mustn't have a valid argument against the claims and statements they've made.

So am I wrong about that?

Hmmmmm......people are sinners who need to be saved from Hell. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. We all deserve to die and burn in Hell. Does that sufficiently decompartmentalize everbody for you? I bet you hate it, don't you? People are not sinners, right? We never really did anyting wrong, we were only being human which is imperfect, right?

If people were created by God and we're imperfect, then God created us imperfect. How is that our fault? Did God ask you if you wanted to be made perfect or imperfect?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 1:08:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 12:48:49 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/7/2014 12:35:36 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 11/4/2014 11:17:30 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/4/2014 9:03:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
I can't help notice how compartmentalizing people seems to be seen as a credible replacement for reasoned responses. People here are evolutionists, theists, atheists, realists, presuppositionalists, materialists, liberals, radicals, extremists, republicans, libertarians, democrats etc.

And none of that is true. We're people. Those of us who think the least likely subscribe to packaged beliefs. Those who think more, likely pick and choose individual beliefs rather than someone else's packaged deals. Even among the religious we find those with extraordinarily personal ideas. And religion is really more about adopting someone elses idea without question, and often, with little examination.

But I keep seeing this practice of simply labeling someone rather than refuting their ideas. I once provided a list of Jesus mythicists (after being told that no one believes Jesus is a myth), and the response was; "Those people were all extremists, liberals and radicals!"

So?

What if they were? How does that defeat their stance - more importantly - how does it defeat the reason for that stance? Anyone can find some category in which to try to pigeonhole anybody else. The vast majority of us are "gravitationalists". Does that somehow show that our political preferences are wrong? There's more to debating someone than trying to label them. And if you try to defeat them by finding labels to pin on them ("Lables" meaning categorized beliefs"), then you mustn't have a valid argument against the claims and statements they've made.

So am I wrong about that?

No, you're absolutely right.

I think thay maybe the reason for the labels is not to convince the individual but to win the audience in some cases. I can't see that as very sportsman like, or moral for that matter.

I also think some people place labels because they are prejudice from the get go. Or perhaps lack the empathy to understand that we aren't all the same and automatically assume they are dealing with a label.

Most people need to have support from a group who have the same fears as they have. This gives them some kind of peace while their with the group. When they are alone, their fears can overwhelm them. I see this a lot when I get a Christian alone and talk to them about the knowledge of God that I possess that they can't understand.

And it's a funny thing that once we get into a group where we think we have found like minded people is when we start hurting each other.

This is one of my favorite topics posted to this forum so far. I find it fascinating that the people here don't want to discuss the labels we place on each other. What I think is even more interesting are the labels we place on ourselves. But no one really wants to remove the labels. If they did they'd be willing to talk about them. I suppose it's easier to ignore them and keep debating things that can't be resolved.

God views His people like He views the rest of His creation. That's why He compares His people to His beasts, grass, sand on the beach, etc.

Isaiah 40
7: The grass withers, the flower fades, when the breath of the LORD blows upon it; surely the people is grass.
8: The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God will stand for ever.

Ecclesiastes 3
19: For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts; for all is vanity.
20: All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again.

Genesis 22
17: I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies,
18: and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice."

Only God's believers will listen to His voice and learn who they are in Him. It's pretty humbling to learn that we're nothing but His thoughts and the flesh are nothing but illusions that will die in this first age.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 1:12:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 1:02:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/7/2014 12:48:29 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 11/4/2014 9:03:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
I can't help notice how compartmentalizing people seems to be seen as a credible replacement for reasoned responses. People here are evolutionists, theists, atheists, realists, presuppositionalists, materialists, liberals, radicals, extremists, republicans, libertarians, democrats etc.

And none of that is true. We're people. Those of us who think the least likely subscribe to packaged beliefs. Those who think more, likely pick and choose individual beliefs rather than someone else's packaged deals. Even among the religious we find those with extraordinarily personal ideas. And religion is really more about adopting someone elses idea without question, and often, with little examination.

But I keep seeing this practice of simply labeling someone rather than refuting their ideas. I once provided a list of Jesus mythicists (after being told that no one believes Jesus is a myth), and the response was; "Those people were all extremists, liberals and radicals!"

So?

What if they were? How does that defeat their stance - more importantly - how does it defeat the reason for that stance? Anyone can find some category in which to try to pigeonhole anybody else. The vast majority of us are "gravitationalists". Does that somehow show that our political preferences are wrong? There's more to debating someone than trying to label them. And if you try to defeat them by finding labels to pin on them ("Lables" meaning categorized beliefs"), then you mustn't have a valid argument against the claims and statements they've made.

So am I wrong about that?

Hmmmmm......people are sinners who need to be saved from Hell. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. We all deserve to die and burn in Hell. Does that sufficiently decompartmentalize everbody for you? I bet you hate it, don't you? People are not sinners, right? We never really did anyting wrong, we were only being human which is imperfect, right?

If people were created by God and we're imperfect, then God created us imperfect. How is that our fault? Did God ask you if you wanted to be made perfect or imperfect?

Right on my friend. Some people love to believe they had free will to choose to be born in this world and die in this world.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 11:48:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/4/2014 9:03:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
I can't help notice how compartmentalizing people seems to be seen as a credible replacement for reasoned responses. People here are evolutionists, theists, atheists, realists, presuppositionalists, materialists, liberals, radicals, extremists, republicans, libertarians, democrats etc.

And none of that is true. We're people. Those of us who think the least likely subscribe to packaged beliefs. Those who think more, likely pick and choose individual beliefs rather than someone else's packaged deals. Even among the religious we find those with extraordinarily personal ideas. And religion is really more about adopting someone elses idea without question, and often, with little examination.

But I keep seeing this practice of simply labeling someone rather than refuting their ideas. I once provided a list of Jesus mythicists (after being told that no one believes Jesus is a myth), and the response was; "Those people were all extremists, liberals and radicals!"

So?

What if they were? How does that defeat their stance - more importantly - how does it defeat the reason for that stance? Anyone can find some category in which to try to pigeonhole anybody else. The vast majority of us are "gravitationalists". Does that somehow show that our political preferences are wrong? There's more to debating someone than trying to label them. And if you try to defeat them by finding labels to pin on them ("Lables" meaning categorized beliefs"), then you mustn't have a valid argument against the claims and statements they've made.

So am I wrong about that?

I find it rather curious that it's "... therefore they are wrong!" is left simply "hanging in the air, as an implication of the label. Applying the label does not refute the ideas, no. That is the implication, however, and not wanting to say it, outright, without being able to support the assertion, is the reason the label is applied, in the first place. Those who apply such a label are hoping that the label is enough to vilify the person they are trying to refute sufficiently with said label to avoid supporting their position. It ad hominem, to varying degrees (depending on the label), with the express purpose of discrediting.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 12:12:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 11:48:11 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 11/4/2014 9:03:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
I can't help notice how compartmentalizing people seems to be seen as a credible replacement for reasoned responses. People here are evolutionists, theists, atheists, realists, presuppositionalists, materialists, liberals, radicals, extremists, republicans, libertarians, democrats etc.

And none of that is true. We're people. Those of us who think the least likely subscribe to packaged beliefs. Those who think more, likely pick and choose individual beliefs rather than someone else's packaged deals. Even among the religious we find those with extraordinarily personal ideas. And religion is really more about adopting someone elses idea without question, and often, with little examination.

But I keep seeing this practice of simply labeling someone rather than refuting their ideas. I once provided a list of Jesus mythicists (after being told that no one believes Jesus is a myth), and the response was; "Those people were all extremists, liberals and radicals!"

So?

What if they were? How does that defeat their stance - more importantly - how does it defeat the reason for that stance? Anyone can find some category in which to try to pigeonhole anybody else. The vast majority of us are "gravitationalists". Does that somehow show that our political preferences are wrong? There's more to debating someone than trying to label them. And if you try to defeat them by finding labels to pin on them ("Lables" meaning categorized beliefs"), then you mustn't have a valid argument against the claims and statements they've made.

So am I wrong about that?

I find it rather curious that it's "... therefore they are wrong!" is left simply "hanging in the air, as an implication of the label. Applying the label does not refute the ideas, no. That is the implication, however, and not wanting to say it, outright, without being able to support the assertion, is the reason the label is applied, in the first place. Those who apply such a label are hoping that the label is enough to vilify the person they are trying to refute sufficiently with said label to avoid supporting their position. It ad hominem, to varying degrees (depending on the label), with the express purpose of discrediting.

Victim mentality.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 2:40:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 11:48:11 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 11/4/2014 9:03:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
I can't help notice how compartmentalizing people seems to be seen as a credible replacement for reasoned responses. People here are evolutionists, theists, atheists, realists, presuppositionalists, materialists, liberals, radicals, extremists, republicans, libertarians, democrats etc.

And none of that is true. We're people. Those of us who think the least likely subscribe to packaged beliefs. Those who think more, likely pick and choose individual beliefs rather than someone else's packaged deals. Even among the religious we find those with extraordinarily personal ideas. And religion is really more about adopting someone elses idea without question, and often, with little examination.

But I keep seeing this practice of simply labeling someone rather than refuting their ideas. I once provided a list of Jesus mythicists (after being told that no one believes Jesus is a myth), and the response was; "Those people were all extremists, liberals and radicals!"

So?

What if they were? How does that defeat their stance - more importantly - how does it defeat the reason for that stance? Anyone can find some category in which to try to pigeonhole anybody else. The vast majority of us are "gravitationalists". Does that somehow show that our political preferences are wrong? There's more to debating someone than trying to label them. And if you try to defeat them by finding labels to pin on them ("Lables" meaning categorized beliefs"), then you mustn't have a valid argument against the claims and statements they've made.

So am I wrong about that?

I find it rather curious that it's "... therefore they are wrong!" is left simply "hanging in the air, as an implication of the label. Applying the label does not refute the ideas, no. That is the implication, however, and not wanting to say it, outright, without being able to support the assertion, is the reason the label is applied, in the first place. Those who apply such a label are hoping that the label is enough to vilify the person they are trying to refute sufficiently with said label to avoid supporting their position. It ad hominem, to varying degrees (depending on the label), with the express purpose of discrediting.

I can't agree with this more. Taking it one step further it is obvious to me that not only do people apply the label to others to discredit them, but also apply a label to themselves that will add credibility to their own claims. Applying false labels in an attempt to create a perversion in contrast to what is logically the simplest and most truthful conclusion to an argument.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 3:23:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 2:40:38 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/7/2014 11:48:11 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 11/4/2014 9:03:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
I can't help notice how compartmentalizing people seems to be seen as a credible replacement for reasoned responses. People here are evolutionists, theists, atheists, realists, presuppositionalists, materialists, liberals, radicals, extremists, republicans, libertarians, democrats etc.

And none of that is true. We're people. Those of us who think the least likely subscribe to packaged beliefs. Those who think more, likely pick and choose individual beliefs rather than someone else's packaged deals. Even among the religious we find those with extraordinarily personal ideas. And religion is really more about adopting someone elses idea without question, and often, with little examination.

But I keep seeing this practice of simply labeling someone rather than refuting their ideas. I once provided a list of Jesus mythicists (after being told that no one believes Jesus is a myth), and the response was; "Those people were all extremists, liberals and radicals!"

So?

What if they were? How does that defeat their stance - more importantly - how does it defeat the reason for that stance? Anyone can find some category in which to try to pigeonhole anybody else. The vast majority of us are "gravitationalists". Does that somehow show that our political preferences are wrong? There's more to debating someone than trying to label them. And if you try to defeat them by finding labels to pin on them ("Lables" meaning categorized beliefs"), then you mustn't have a valid argument against the claims and statements they've made.

So am I wrong about that?

I find it rather curious that it's "... therefore they are wrong!" is left simply "hanging in the air, as an implication of the label. Applying the label does not refute the ideas, no. That is the implication, however, and not wanting to say it, outright, without being able to support the assertion, is the reason the label is applied, in the first place. Those who apply such a label are hoping that the label is enough to vilify the person they are trying to refute sufficiently with said label to avoid supporting their position. It ad hominem, to varying degrees (depending on the label), with the express purpose of discrediting.

I can't agree with this more. Taking it one step further it is obvious to me that not only do people apply the label to others to discredit them, but also apply a label to themselves that will add credibility to their own claims. Applying false labels in an attempt to create a perversion in contrast to what is logically the simplest and most truthful conclusion to an argument.

Dead on target, and well stated. Thanks for filling in what I missed.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 5:36:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 12:12:43 PM, neutral wrote:
At 11/7/2014 11:48:11 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 11/4/2014 9:03:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
I can't help notice how compartmentalizing people seems to be seen as a credible replacement for reasoned responses. People here are evolutionists, theists, atheists, realists, presuppositionalists, materialists, liberals, radicals, extremists, republicans, libertarians, democrats etc.

And none of that is true. We're people. Those of us who think the least likely subscribe to packaged beliefs. Those who think more, likely pick and choose individual beliefs rather than someone else's packaged deals. Even among the religious we find those with extraordinarily personal ideas. And religion is really more about adopting someone elses idea without question, and often, with little examination.

But I keep seeing this practice of simply labeling someone rather than refuting their ideas. I once provided a list of Jesus mythicists (after being told that no one believes Jesus is a myth), and the response was; "Those people were all extremists, liberals and radicals!"

So?

What if they were? How does that defeat their stance - more importantly - how does it defeat the reason for that stance? Anyone can find some category in which to try to pigeonhole anybody else. The vast majority of us are "gravitationalists". Does that somehow show that our political preferences are wrong? There's more to debating someone than trying to label them. And if you try to defeat them by finding labels to pin on them ("Lables" meaning categorized beliefs"), then you mustn't have a valid argument against the claims and statements they've made.

So am I wrong about that?

I find it rather curious that it's "... therefore they are wrong!" is left simply "hanging in the air, as an implication of the label. Applying the label does not refute the ideas, no. That is the implication, however, and not wanting to say it, outright, without being able to support the assertion, is the reason the label is applied, in the first place. Those who apply such a label are hoping that the label is enough to vilify the person they are trying to refute sufficiently with said label to avoid supporting their position. It ad hominem, to varying degrees (depending on the label), with the express purpose of discrediting.

Victim mentality.

Label. Point in case.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 7:11:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 5:36:32 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/7/2014 12:12:43 PM, neutral wrote:
At 11/7/2014 11:48:11 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 11/4/2014 9:03:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
I can't help notice how compartmentalizing people seems to be seen as a credible replacement for reasoned responses. People here are evolutionists, theists, atheists, realists, presuppositionalists, materialists, liberals, radicals, extremists, republicans, libertarians, democrats etc.

And none of that is true. We're people. Those of us who think the least likely subscribe to packaged beliefs. Those who think more, likely pick and choose individual beliefs rather than someone else's packaged deals. Even among the religious we find those with extraordinarily personal ideas. And religion is really more about adopting someone elses idea without question, and often, with little examination.

But I keep seeing this practice of simply labeling someone rather than refuting their ideas. I once provided a list of Jesus mythicists (after being told that no one believes Jesus is a myth), and the response was; "Those people were all extremists, liberals and radicals!"

So?

What if they were? How does that defeat their stance - more importantly - how does it defeat the reason for that stance? Anyone can find some category in which to try to pigeonhole anybody else. The vast majority of us are "gravitationalists". Does that somehow show that our political preferences are wrong? There's more to debating someone than trying to label them. And if you try to defeat them by finding labels to pin on them ("Lables" meaning categorized beliefs"), then you mustn't have a valid argument against the claims and statements they've made.

So am I wrong about that?

I find it rather curious that it's "... therefore they are wrong!" is left simply "hanging in the air, as an implication of the label. Applying the label does not refute the ideas, no. That is the implication, however, and not wanting to say it, outright, without being able to support the assertion, is the reason the label is applied, in the first place. Those who apply such a label are hoping that the label is enough to vilify the person they are trying to refute sufficiently with said label to avoid supporting their position. It ad hominem, to varying degrees (depending on the label), with the express purpose of discrediting.

Victim mentality.

Label. Point in case.

To be perfectly honest with you, I wouldn't place any stock in what you read, from this poster. Nothing ever posted by him carries any weight. It is almost invariably pure vitriol, born of narrow-minded ignorance and hatred. While the labels are often meant to be cover by otherwise decent human beings, this particular poster has a penchant for virulent hatred, aimed at atheists, but incorporating agnostics and, erratically, any other that disagrees with him. There is zero credibility to anything ever posted by this individual.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 7:30:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 7:11:01 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 11/7/2014 5:36:32 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/7/2014 12:12:43 PM, neutral wrote:
At 11/7/2014 11:48:11 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 11/4/2014 9:03:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
I can't help notice how compartmentalizing people seems to be seen as a credible replacement for reasoned responses. People here are evolutionists, theists, atheists, realists, presuppositionalists, materialists, liberals, radicals, extremists, republicans, libertarians, democrats etc.

And none of that is true. We're people. Those of us who think the least likely subscribe to packaged beliefs. Those who think more, likely pick and choose individual beliefs rather than someone else's packaged deals. Even among the religious we find those with extraordinarily personal ideas. And religion is really more about adopting someone elses idea without question, and often, with little examination.

But I keep seeing this practice of simply labeling someone rather than refuting their ideas. I once provided a list of Jesus mythicists (after being told that no one believes Jesus is a myth), and the response was; "Those people were all extremists, liberals and radicals!"

So?

What if they were? How does that defeat their stance - more importantly - how does it defeat the reason for that stance? Anyone can find some category in which to try to pigeonhole anybody else. The vast majority of us are "gravitationalists". Does that somehow show that our political preferences are wrong? There's more to debating someone than trying to label them. And if you try to defeat them by finding labels to pin on them ("Lables" meaning categorized beliefs"), then you mustn't have a valid argument against the claims and statements they've made.

So am I wrong about that?

I find it rather curious that it's "... therefore they are wrong!" is left simply "hanging in the air, as an implication of the label. Applying the label does not refute the ideas, no. That is the implication, however, and not wanting to say it, outright, without being able to support the assertion, is the reason the label is applied, in the first place. Those who apply such a label are hoping that the label is enough to vilify the person they are trying to refute sufficiently with said label to avoid supporting their position. It ad hominem, to varying degrees (depending on the label), with the express purpose of discrediting.

Victim mentality.

Label. Point in case.

To be perfectly honest with you, I wouldn't place any stock in what you read, from this poster. Nothing ever posted by him carries any weight. It is almost invariably pure vitriol, born of narrow-minded ignorance and hatred. While the labels are often meant to be cover by otherwise decent human beings, this particular poster has a penchant for virulent hatred, aimed at atheists, but incorporating agnostics and, erratically, any other that disagrees with him. There is zero credibility to anything ever posted by this individual.

I've been subjected the neutral experience. What I think is entertaining is that twice now in the past 24 hours I've seen him inadvertently prove the point of an original post. In this case he didn't even read the post. He was trolling Beastt and applied a label to him. :D His wealth of stupidity is impressive.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 7:33:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 7:30:08 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
He was trolling Beastt...

Ha! I like the guy already :o)
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 8:24:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 7:33:51 PM, mortsdor wrote:
At 11/7/2014 7:30:08 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
He was trolling Beastt...

Ha! I like the guy already :o)

Lol! I guess we all have our antagonists. =D
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 9:05:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 5:36:32 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/7/2014 12:12:43 PM, neutral wrote:
At 11/7/2014 11:48:11 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 11/4/2014 9:03:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
I can't help notice how compartmentalizing people seems to be seen as a credible replacement for reasoned responses. People here are evolutionists, theists, atheists, realists, presuppositionalists, materialists, liberals, radicals, extremists, republicans, libertarians, democrats etc.

And none of that is true. We're people. Those of us who think the least likely subscribe to packaged beliefs. Those who think more, likely pick and choose individual beliefs rather than someone else's packaged deals. Even among the religious we find those with extraordinarily personal ideas. And religion is really more about adopting someone elses idea without question, and often, with little examination.

But I keep seeing this practice of simply labeling someone rather than refuting their ideas. I once provided a list of Jesus mythicists (after being told that no one believes Jesus is a myth), and the response was; "Those people were all extremists, liberals and radicals!"

So?

What if they were? How does that defeat their stance - more importantly - how does it defeat the reason for that stance? Anyone can find some category in which to try to pigeonhole anybody else. The vast majority of us are "gravitationalists". Does that somehow show that our political preferences are wrong? There's more to debating someone than trying to label them. And if you try to defeat them by finding labels to pin on them ("Lables" meaning categorized beliefs"), then you mustn't have a valid argument against the claims and statements they've made.

So am I wrong about that?

I find it rather curious that it's "... therefore they are wrong!" is left simply "hanging in the air, as an implication of the label. Applying the label does not refute the ideas, no. That is the implication, however, and not wanting to say it, outright, without being able to support the assertion, is the reason the label is applied, in the first place. Those who apply such a label are hoping that the label is enough to vilify the person they are trying to refute sufficiently with said label to avoid supporting their position. It ad hominem, to varying degrees (depending on the label), with the express purpose of discrediting.

Victim mentality.

Label. Point in case.

And yet, we have to accurately describe things.

Saying a tree has leaves is a label. Saying think first, who is dropping into threads to insult people and then tell them he doesn't want to speak to them (just continuously insult them) while claiming he's a victim is accurately described as a victim mentality.

In accurate labels are problematic, accurate labels are not.

The entire point of that post was to remind troll boy, that if he jumps into threads to launch insults and then attempt to derail a thread with antics, his attempts at conversation can be treated the same way.

Standards.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 9:33:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 9:05:46 PM, neutral wrote:
At 11/7/2014 5:36:32 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/7/2014 12:12:43 PM, neutral wrote:
At 11/7/2014 11:48:11 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 11/4/2014 9:03:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
I can't help notice how compartmentalizing people seems to be seen as a credible replacement for reasoned responses. People here are evolutionists, theists, atheists, realists, presuppositionalists, materialists, liberals, radicals, extremists, republicans, libertarians, democrats etc.

And none of that is true. We're people. Those of us who think the least likely subscribe to packaged beliefs. Those who think more, likely pick and choose individual beliefs rather than someone else's packaged deals. Even among the religious we find those with extraordinarily personal ideas. And religion is really more about adopting someone elses idea without question, and often, with little examination.

But I keep seeing this practice of simply labeling someone rather than refuting their ideas. I once provided a list of Jesus mythicists (after being told that no one believes Jesus is a myth), and the response was; "Those people were all extremists, liberals and radicals!"

So?

What if they were? How does that defeat their stance - more importantly - how does it defeat the reason for that stance? Anyone can find some category in which to try to pigeonhole anybody else. The vast majority of us are "gravitationalists". Does that somehow show that our political preferences are wrong? There's more to debating someone than trying to label them. And if you try to defeat them by finding labels to pin on them ("Lables" meaning categorized beliefs"), then you mustn't have a valid argument against the claims and statements they've made.

So am I wrong about that?

I find it rather curious that it's "... therefore they are wrong!" is left simply "hanging in the air, as an implication of the label. Applying the label does not refute the ideas, no. That is the implication, however, and not wanting to say it, outright, without being able to support the assertion, is the reason the label is applied, in the first place. Those who apply such a label are hoping that the label is enough to vilify the person they are trying to refute sufficiently with said label to avoid supporting their position. It ad hominem, to varying degrees (depending on the label), with the express purpose of discrediting.

Victim mentality.

Label. Point in case.

And yet, we have to accurately describe things.

Saying a tree has leaves is a label. Saying think first, who is dropping into threads to insult people and then tell them he doesn't want to speak to them (just continuously insult them) while claiming he's a victim is accurately described as a victim mentality.

In accurate labels are problematic, accurate labels are not.

The entire point of that post was to remind troll boy, that if he jumps into threads to launch insults and then attempt to derail a thread with antics, his attempts at conversation can be treated the same way.

Standards.

Do you think it is possible for us to fix this? I try to get along with everyone. I cannot tell you how to repair things with certain users here. I don't know your history with them. However I want to be able to get along with you. I'd like to have productive discussions with you that aren't heated. While I have my own take on things I still like to remain open to other people's thoughts.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2014 12:38:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 7:30:08 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/7/2014 7:11:01 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 11/7/2014 5:36:32 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/7/2014 12:12:43 PM, neutral wrote:
At 11/7/2014 11:48:11 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 11/4/2014 9:03:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
I can't help notice how compartmentalizing people seems to be seen as a credible replacement for reasoned responses. People here are evolutionists, theists, atheists, realists, presuppositionalists, materialists, liberals, radicals, extremists, republicans, libertarians, democrats etc.

And none of that is true. We're people. Those of us who think the least likely subscribe to packaged beliefs. Those who think more, likely pick and choose individual beliefs rather than someone else's packaged deals. Even among the religious we find those with extraordinarily personal ideas. And religion is really more about adopting someone elses idea without question, and often, with little examination.

But I keep seeing this practice of simply labeling someone rather than refuting their ideas. I once provided a list of Jesus mythicists (after being told that no one believes Jesus is a myth), and the response was; "Those people were all extremists, liberals and radicals!"

So?

What if they were? How does that defeat their stance - more importantly - how does it defeat the reason for that stance? Anyone can find some category in which to try to pigeonhole anybody else. The vast majority of us are "gravitationalists". Does that somehow show that our political preferences are wrong? There's more to debating someone than trying to label them. And if you try to defeat them by finding labels to pin on them ("Lables" meaning categorized beliefs"), then you mustn't have a valid argument against the claims and statements they've made.

So am I wrong about that?

I find it rather curious that it's "... therefore they are wrong!" is left simply "hanging in the air, as an implication of the label. Applying the label does not refute the ideas, no. That is the implication, however, and not wanting to say it, outright, without being able to support the assertion, is the reason the label is applied, in the first place. Those who apply such a label are hoping that the label is enough to vilify the person they are trying to refute sufficiently with said label to avoid supporting their position. It ad hominem, to varying degrees (depending on the label), with the express purpose of discrediting.

Victim mentality.

Label. Point in case.

To be perfectly honest with you, I wouldn't place any stock in what you read, from this poster. Nothing ever posted by him carries any weight. It is almost invariably pure vitriol, born of narrow-minded ignorance and hatred. While the labels are often meant to be cover by otherwise decent human beings, this particular poster has a penchant for virulent hatred, aimed at atheists, but incorporating agnostics and, erratically, any other that disagrees with him. There is zero credibility to anything ever posted by this individual.

I've been subjected the neutral experience. What I think is entertaining is that twice now in the past 24 hours I've seen him inadvertently prove the point of an original post. In this case he didn't even read the post. He was trolling Beastt and applied a label to him. :D His wealth of stupidity is impressive.

It's funny that he's also forever accusing others of trolling. I guess that's the power of theistic zealotry...
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2014 1:44:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 9:33:03 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/7/2014 9:05:46 PM, neutral wrote:
At 11/7/2014 5:36:32 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/7/2014 12:12:43 PM, neutral wrote:
At 11/7/2014 11:48:11 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 11/4/2014 9:03:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
I can't help notice how compartmentalizing people seems to be seen as a credible replacement for reasoned responses. People here are evolutionists, theists, atheists, realists, presuppositionalists, materialists, liberals, radicals, extremists, republicans, libertarians, democrats etc.

And none of that is true. We're people. Those of us who think the least likely subscribe to packaged beliefs. Those who think more, likely pick and choose individual beliefs rather than someone else's packaged deals. Even among the religious we find those with extraordinarily personal ideas. And religion is really more about adopting someone elses idea without question, and often, with little examination.

But I keep seeing this practice of simply labeling someone rather than refuting their ideas. I once provided a list of Jesus mythicists (after being told that no one believes Jesus is a myth), and the response was; "Those people were all extremists, liberals and radicals!"

So?

What if they were? How does that defeat their stance - more importantly - how does it defeat the reason for that stance? Anyone can find some category in which to try to pigeonhole anybody else. The vast majority of us are "gravitationalists". Does that somehow show that our political preferences are wrong? There's more to debating someone than trying to label them. And if you try to defeat them by finding labels to pin on them ("Lables" meaning categorized beliefs"), then you mustn't have a valid argument against the claims and statements they've made.

So am I wrong about that?

I find it rather curious that it's "... therefore they are wrong!" is left simply "hanging in the air, as an implication of the label. Applying the label does not refute the ideas, no. That is the implication, however, and not wanting to say it, outright, without being able to support the assertion, is the reason the label is applied, in the first place. Those who apply such a label are hoping that the label is enough to vilify the person they are trying to refute sufficiently with said label to avoid supporting their position. It ad hominem, to varying degrees (depending on the label), with the express purpose of discrediting.

Victim mentality.

Label. Point in case.

And yet, we have to accurately describe things.

Saying a tree has leaves is a label. Saying think first, who is dropping into threads to insult people and then tell them he doesn't want to speak to them (just continuously insult them) while claiming he's a victim is accurately described as a victim mentality.

In accurate labels are problematic, accurate labels are not.

The entire point of that post was to remind troll boy, that if he jumps into threads to launch insults and then attempt to derail a thread with antics, his attempts at conversation can be treated the same way.

Standards.

Do you think it is possible for us to fix this? I try to get along with everyone. I cannot tell you how to repair things with certain users here. I don't know your history with them. However I want to be able to get along with you. I'd like to have productive discussions with you that aren't heated. While I have my own take on things I still like to remain open to other people's thoughts.

I don't think we can fix it. He can fix it because it is his behavior. The mods can fix it. But I don't think there is anything left that the users can do. He's not showing any signs of wanting to improve his behavior.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2014 2:13:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/8/2014 1:44:24 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/7/2014 9:33:03 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/7/2014 9:05:46 PM, neutral wrote:
At 11/7/2014 5:36:32 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/7/2014 12:12:43 PM, neutral wrote:
At 11/7/2014 11:48:11 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 11/4/2014 9:03:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
I can't help notice how compartmentalizing people seems to be seen as a credible replacement for reasoned responses. People here are evolutionists, theists, atheists, realists, presuppositionalists, materialists, liberals, radicals, extremists, republicans, libertarians, democrats etc.

And none of that is true. We're people. Those of us who think the least likely subscribe to packaged beliefs. Those who think more, likely pick and choose individual beliefs rather than someone else's packaged deals. Even among the religious we find those with extraordinarily personal ideas. And religion is really more about adopting someone elses idea without question, and often, with little examination.

But I keep seeing this practice of simply labeling someone rather than refuting their ideas. I once provided a list of Jesus mythicists (after being told that no one believes Jesus is a myth), and the response was; "Those people were all extremists, liberals and radicals!"

So?

What if they were? How does that defeat their stance - more importantly - how does it defeat the reason for that stance? Anyone can find some category in which to try to pigeonhole anybody else. The vast majority of us are "gravitationalists". Does that somehow show that our political preferences are wrong? There's more to debating someone than trying to label them. And if you try to defeat them by finding labels to pin on them ("Lables" meaning categorized beliefs"), then you mustn't have a valid argument against the claims and statements they've made.

So am I wrong about that?

I find it rather curious that it's "... therefore they are wrong!" is left simply "hanging in the air, as an implication of the label. Applying the label does not refute the ideas, no. That is the implication, however, and not wanting to say it, outright, without being able to support the assertion, is the reason the label is applied, in the first place. Those who apply such a label are hoping that the label is enough to vilify the person they are trying to refute sufficiently with said label to avoid supporting their position. It ad hominem, to varying degrees (depending on the label), with the express purpose of discrediting.

Victim mentality.

Label. Point in case.

And yet, we have to accurately describe things.

Saying a tree has leaves is a label. Saying think first, who is dropping into threads to insult people and then tell them he doesn't want to speak to them (just continuously insult them) while claiming he's a victim is accurately described as a victim mentality.

In accurate labels are problematic, accurate labels are not.

The entire point of that post was to remind troll boy, that if he jumps into threads to launch insults and then attempt to derail a thread with antics, his attempts at conversation can be treated the same way.

Standards.

Do you think it is possible for us to fix this? I try to get along with everyone. I cannot tell you how to repair things with certain users here. I don't know your history with them. However I want to be able to get along with you. I'd like to have productive discussions with you that aren't heated. While I have my own take on things I still like to remain open to other people's thoughts.

I don't think we can fix it. He can fix it because it is his behavior. The mods can fix it. But I don't think there is anything left that the users can do. He's not showing any signs of wanting to improve his behavior.

You're probably right. As always. -_-

I will remain blissfully hopeful.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2014 2:36:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/8/2014 2:13:43 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/8/2014 1:44:24 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/7/2014 9:33:03 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/7/2014 9:05:46 PM, neutral wrote:
At 11/7/2014 5:36:32 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/7/2014 12:12:43 PM, neutral wrote:
At 11/7/2014 11:48:11 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 11/4/2014 9:03:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
I can't help notice how compartmentalizing people seems to be seen as a credible replacement for reasoned responses. People here are evolutionists, theists, atheists, realists, presuppositionalists, materialists, liberals, radicals, extremists, republicans, libertarians, democrats etc.

And none of that is true. We're people. Those of us who think the least likely subscribe to packaged beliefs. Those who think more, likely pick and choose individual beliefs rather than someone else's packaged deals. Even among the religious we find those with extraordinarily personal ideas. And religion is really more about adopting someone elses idea without question, and often, with little examination.

But I keep seeing this practice of simply labeling someone rather than refuting their ideas. I once provided a list of Jesus mythicists (after being told that no one believes Jesus is a myth), and the response was; "Those people were all extremists, liberals and radicals!"

So?

What if they were? How does that defeat their stance - more importantly - how does it defeat the reason for that stance? Anyone can find some category in which to try to pigeonhole anybody else. The vast majority of us are "gravitationalists". Does that somehow show that our political preferences are wrong? There's more to debating someone than trying to label them. And if you try to defeat them by finding labels to pin on them ("Lables" meaning categorized beliefs"), then you mustn't have a valid argument against the claims and statements they've made.

So am I wrong about that?

I find it rather curious that it's "... therefore they are wrong!" is left simply "hanging in the air, as an implication of the label. Applying the label does not refute the ideas, no. That is the implication, however, and not wanting to say it, outright, without being able to support the assertion, is the reason the label is applied, in the first place. Those who apply such a label are hoping that the label is enough to vilify the person they are trying to refute sufficiently with said label to avoid supporting their position. It ad hominem, to varying degrees (depending on the label), with the express purpose of discrediting.

Victim mentality.

Label. Point in case.

And yet, we have to accurately describe things.

Saying a tree has leaves is a label. Saying think first, who is dropping into threads to insult people and then tell them he doesn't want to speak to them (just continuously insult them) while claiming he's a victim is accurately described as a victim mentality.

In accurate labels are problematic, accurate labels are not.

The entire point of that post was to remind troll boy, that if he jumps into threads to launch insults and then attempt to derail a thread with antics, his attempts at conversation can be treated the same way.

Standards.

Do you think it is possible for us to fix this? I try to get along with everyone. I cannot tell you how to repair things with certain users here. I don't know your history with them. However I want to be able to get along with you. I'd like to have productive discussions with you that aren't heated. While I have my own take on things I still like to remain open to other people's thoughts.

I don't think we can fix it. He can fix it because it is his behavior. The mods can fix it. But I don't think there is anything left that the users can do. He's not showing any signs of wanting to improve his behavior.

You're probably right. As always. -_-

I will remain blissfully hopeful.

If anyone can, it's probably you. I've tried... spent almost a whole night trying to talk him down and nudge him toward a civil and honest track. He derailed before the night was out.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire