How can you argue against something you know nothing about?

Question

I understand why people do this, but how can you blatantly talk out of your butt about things you haven't the slightest inkling about?

Personal Objective Research is the ONLY method to true learning. If you are parroting someone else, that is not knowledge.

Examination of VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE would certainly fall under this category. Those who make claims to the contrary are just being facetious, and attempting a psuedo-intellectual ad hominem.

Answer 1

I agree, man. But people are lazy. I remember once reading something about "If you try to make people think, they will hate you. But if you think FOR them, and let them believe they are thinking for themselves, they will love you."

Seems to hit the old nail on the head, don't you think? :)

Answer 2

Jon M has a good point, well said. I wish I had said it...dammit.

I agree with you also in that Many Religious people tend to Echo views without asking questions.

A particular Echo is Literal Interpretations of "Bibles" with the idea-apparent belief that Jesus actualy hung from a cross; the symbolism of this "event" is the very language of the Spirit and in this the "bible" is written.

One Other particular issue is the "Bible" itself. A string of text over centuries placed together as a nexus interpretation of "Gods"; I have no major problem with it being placed in one text; yet cringe when some appear to think it came "all together" as One text at One time to form Christianity.

Oh, Jesus was real, more real and valid as any; yet, his teachings were of a Spritual nature, Not Physical; a tuff nut to crack for some, but Consider entering into a physical realm (of ours) not necessary at all for the likes of Jesus, Oden, Buddah and so on. Of course each did enter the physical world during many lifetimes as many different personalities and in this they learned.

Answer 3

Who'd you hear that from? Have you been into space and seen that the Earth revolves around the Sun? If not, your "personal objective research" must lead you to conclude that the Sun moves through the sky. You could not write what is here, since the alphabet would have to be "parrotted" from others. You must think through what you say!

And by the way, if someone actually knows NOTHING about something, they could not even speak of it, much less argue about it.

Answer 4

As regards this forum, no one knows who is "right" and who is "wrong"--issues of religion and spirituality can not be proven or disproven in an empirical sense.

People should do as much reading and contemplation as they can on their own, but in matters such as this many *agree* with others whom have gone before them, which is different than "parroting". Of course, if one can't offer an explanation of why they believe what they do, the validity of that belief is questionable. (Even if their reasons are emotional ones, at least that's a reason!)

You are right that people should make up their own minds--but it's all opinion (sorry...faith) when it comes to religion, anyway. We should all feel free to share, but do it in a way that respects others' right to their own beliefs.

Answer 5

Well, I argue against religion.I once was a Christian.I also took several years of religious studies in college.Thus, I can argue against it confidently knowing what I am talking about.But I agree, people should know what they are talking about before making an argument.So many people argue against evolution with the most lame and uninformed information.

Answer 6

I've experienced the Lord Jesus Christ in my life and that personal objective (my experience) is the only method to true learning I need. No one has had my experience therefore cannot tell me that it isn't true or valid. It is very real. Experience (personal knowledge) is more important than reasearch.

Answer 7

Knowledge can be accumulated by learning.
Reading and weighing up evidence to reach a conclusion is a valid endeavour. The conclusions are not parroting.

Answer 8

Indeed, their Law vs Law is sow dog gone dividead.
Ppl who do sow, don't know it's as Loser vs Loser.
It's preposterous order to teach first, learn after.

Grace neither makes nor takes sides,
for Law vs Law sides wars have side effects,
wars have this side effect to both sides: death.

Nevertheless, His Grace always "let"s:
If any man be ignorant, let him(not you) be ignorant.
If any bring another gospel, let him be accursed by it.
You too can have partiality with an impartial God? Not!
You too can bend over, dble kiss divided @ss bye bye.
For it(law) can't change "the end" that is already written:

The GRACE of our Lord Jesus Christ with you all. Amen.

Answer 9

You can argue about something you know nothing about by using what your opponent has already said. Just stretch the point to its nonsensical conclusion. You don't need to trouble yourself with hard work, like Personal Objective Research!

Answer 10

Knowledge can be Known yet we "think" that we must learn all we know. When you know yourself you will realize that you are nothing. What you "think" you are is what you will identify with, even if it has no basis in truth.

Answer 11

Yes I see what you are saying. In order to use calculus I have to first invent it myself, like Newton and the other guy whose name escapes me right now. I wouldn't want to believe them. I'd have to do it myself. And I certainly wouldn't want to believe someone that if I jumped off the top of a building I'd be killed, better try it out first.