Face to face as opposed to yahoo answers? I notice a lot of hostility and anger and ridicule(Some of which I contribute to) but do you feel it's easier to talk to an Atheist or Theist face to face or would you all just rather debate on yahoo answers?
2007-07-25 07:00:22 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Face to face is ultimately the best but both people have to be mature enough for it. There is no reason to argue if you can discuss the issues reasonably. People here of course are faceless, and can say anything they want to and get away with it even if they're being assholes; that usually doesn't fly face to face, so you have to be strong in your reasoning and logic, but you can be weak on message boards. Hence some of the really bad answers you get :)
2007-07-25 07:10:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Asking and answering questions on this site doesn't prevent people from also discussing things face to face.
Those can also get heated.
Remember the Guidelines for this site, and report all violations you see; that would go far in making this more civilized.
Yes, it's easier to be rude on-line than in person, but I've been involved in some pretty angry face-to-face discussions, too.
The great thing about this site is there's more variety of views; and we can all talk (answer) at once.
There's no such thing as interrupting each other on this site.
But, again, I don't see why it's an all or nothing kind of deal.
2007-07-25 08:46:42 · answer #2 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This occurs quite frequently, actually. Michael Shermer (Why Darwin Matters) has debated fundamental christians, as has Richard Dawkins,(The God Delusion, The Ancestor;s Tale) even tho the christians loose every time with regard to logic.... The problem is that Chistians ignore the fundamentals of logic, and in the end, resort to the bible as god's written and therefore true word... Darwin verses Genesis is a common debate subject. Watch the movie Inherit the Wind, to see how W.J. Bryant was reduced to a ranting idiot against Tracy's Clarence Darrow. Sure, it is Hollywood, but not too far from the transcript I once read eons ago..And remember it wasn't really a trial--- Scopes agreed to be the fall guy in a test of Tennessee's statute... it was all arranged, except fir the arguments. Interestingly, Bryant died two days after the end of the trial
2007-07-25 07:19:57 · answer #3 · answered by April 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course it's easier. I discuss these issues with atheists face to face all the time. But on here you have access to a wider variety of opinions...and it makes the work day go by faster.
2007-07-25 07:07:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
LOL! nicely, R&S serves a triple purpose as: a) a place to talk and project actual subject concerns. b) a place for psychological jousting c) a place for leisure We additionally get a share of low-grade stuff, yet that's inevitable in an open dialogue board for Joe Public. All are suited or tolerable to maximum (if I project others, i ought to be arranged to be challenged), apart from the minority who're record monkeys that attempt to impose their intolerance of loose speech.
2016-10-09 08:59:50 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can reach a lot more people here than in one-to-one meetings.
I used to be a quiet atheist, but after reading The End of Faith, I realized how important it is to end the unspoken amnesty religion has from criticism and start putting social pressure on it. That's what society has done about smoking, and religion is much more dangerous than smoking.
2007-07-25 07:13:03 · answer #6 · answered by Diminati 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'd love a face to face, but the problem with me is that I respect different beliefs so we'd just be discussing why we believe in what we believe, let's get together at starbucks and have a coffee and a great conversation........I don't rile easily.....even amped on coffee :)
edit: I don't own a gun.....just a softball bat but I only use that for softball.......
2007-07-25 07:05:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Its always difficult to discuss or debate online as so much of human communication is nonverbal. But I don't know what the alternative is. The internet can be a valuable tool for communication but has its drawbacks as well.
2007-07-25 07:04:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The problem is that there is not alot to discuss.
Your really not going to change my mind, I am not going to change yours.
That is why most of the discussion end up being a contest of one-upmanship.
A structured debate would be fun.
But not likely.
I cant prove GOD exists to you, and you cant prove he does not exist.
stalemate!
But I like athiest and agnostics .. some of them are really cool..
But you have your share of raving loonyes.. just like my side does.
Life rolls on.
2007-07-25 07:08:00 · answer #9 · answered by tiggis2006 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I feel our sentiment is more honest in ways online.
We would be less straight forward in person,
yet I do think the ridicule is a down side, however.
2007-07-25 07:05:12 · answer #10 · answered by Nickel-for-your-thoughts 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋