I'm an atheist. If I want to learn about the evolution of the Platypus ( something I know nothing about ) I check what those who study that subject have to say, and tentatively accept it as true without demanding any other proof.
Religious people do the same. They consult books on the subject of God, or ask priests. We are no different in HOW we came to believe as we do , just in WHAT we believe.
We cannot morally force others to our viewpoint. I'll come in here and ask questions about things I want to more about from those who have studied. Let's stop using Yahoo as a soapbox to undermine one another.
2006-09-26 12:06:55 · 17 answers · asked by Atheist 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
i do agree with you. there should be a place were all people can talk without the garbage or stupid questions. but this is a free world i just wish that some would have common sense. I myself do let others know what i believe, if you don't believe the same then that is for you to believe or not. to bad we cannot use water to rinse out this soapbox.
2006-09-26 12:53:24 · answer #1 · answered by nieceofmissourifats 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree that we should stop using Yahoo answers as a soapbox to insult and undermine one another. Some Christians mess up on the fact that evolution is a part of most life on earth, beings that animals, plants, and humans have to adapt, which is another form of evolving.
It is true, I've seen many Christians (or any other belief) try to force what they believe down peoples throats. I don't agree with this process, though. They end up insulting instead of showing people the basis of their faith (for Christians it is overwhelming love).
I would love to see an unpredjudiced answer to any question, this place wouldn't get so crowded with debate if we all did that. Is it too much to ask for just an honest, civil answer to a well thought out question?
Wow, good question Atheist! Certainly got me thinkin'.
Honestly, H.L.R. (Christian)
2006-09-26 12:32:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most of the time, you will find that those who argue so much to the point of insulting one another are those that have just learned little things. On both sides, anyone who reaches the full knowledge of what he believes also come to a point of maturity when each realizes that these are like two parallel lines that goes to the same direction but never meets to the same point. They may just reach to the same end. I am glad to know that you are are the mature world.
2006-09-26 12:23:27 · answer #3 · answered by Rallie Florencio C 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is one thing to research something you know nothing about. That just requires recieving input. If you truely have NO KNOWLEDGE about the subject (your platypus, for example), then your research will truely be without prejudice, for you have nothing already in your mind to put any "counter-spin" on your thoughts. All knowledge is recieved on faith (trust) in the source.
It is quite another to become involved in a "discussion" on a mutually agreed-upon topic. Take your platypus, for example, Suppose you and 5 of your friends have each done independent studies of the animal and its history/development/habits. At an agreed-upon site, you all come together to "discuss" your findings. Each of you will come to the table with a "prejudiced" view of their knowledge of the platypus, based on where and how they found their information. While you may be able to agree on certain "platyputic" facts, there may be other things you disagree on, again depending on where you each found your information. If, in the process of your discussion, a problem with one of the information sources is found ("My Platypus, My Friend" was written by a con artist!), wouldn't you want to point that out to your friend?
That is the nature of discussion: dialogue, give and take, each of you sharing what you know, and comparing it against what you already have. It isn't about "forcing" somebody to any certain point of view. It is about sharing what we know. "Prejudice" about our knowledge just comes from familiarity, and it dissolves in (or is reinforced by) exposure to the truth.
2006-09-26 12:24:02 · answer #4 · answered by MamaBear 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The trouble is that these issues are the most important ones, you believe in what you believe because you reckon that that is the absolute truth. Your whole existence depends on the truth of your truth. People just get extremely hot about this topic, unfortunately this explains a lot about terrorism too.
2006-09-26 12:11:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Im short..human nature. I mainly just read the posts now, the odd comment now and again. Its like a war zone on here at times, and impossible to have rational discussions. Good luck.
2006-09-26 12:14:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I"m an atheist and your diatribe is nonsensical to the point of incomprehensibility.
It appears you are suggesting that if someone makes a claim, it should be taken at face value and not refuted or analyzed.
There is no evidence to support God belief, so why would anyone accept that claim at face value?
2006-09-26 12:12:13 · answer #7 · answered by Left the building 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
i know this is a tad off topic, but why do athiests seem to believe that all christians are stupid enough to not believe in evoloution? as the earth has changed, animals have needed to adapt and the strong survive. what is so hard to grasp about that? no, i dont think humans evolved from crawly little things, but i do think that evoloution is inevitable.
2006-09-26 12:11:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Excellent question and comments! You are a beautiful person.
=0)
2006-09-26 12:12:41 · answer #9 · answered by Pashur 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Amen.
We are worth a Son to God.
2006-09-26 12:09:51 · answer #10 · answered by thomasnotdoubting 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋