(March 2, 2011 at 10:58 am)The Diplomat Wrote: [...]I have no idea what occam's scalpel[razor] is.[...]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
Quote:[...]my point was (and remains) that diplomats tend to be able to see both sides (by definition). That requires cool logic, not heated emotion.
That makes them more logical in the sense of rational. That doesn't mean your reasoning is any more logical. It's possible to see both sides almost blindly or only one side very clearly.
Quote:I come on here to expose myself to other beliefs, take them to heart (I don't discard atheists' arguments!), and realize that I come out of it as a stronger Christian. Its not all about living in a bubble.
Sure, that's a fine thing as a side-effect, coming out stronger. As an aim it isn't so good
Quote:The whole "why not" thing is simple - without logic, it becomes a war of emotion - whoever gets the most angry feels the most justified.One can get angry and still have valid points.
Quote:That's no way to have a religious convo that is moving forward.It depends if the emotions turn to hysteria.
Quote: If you intend to break out of your own bubble, how do you intend to do that without realizing that others' beliefs have A value.Their beliefs might do more harm than good.
Quote: Naturally, you won't value them as high as your own; that's fine. But if you don't accept that they have the slimmest bit of possibility to them whatsoever, the convo will benefit both sides drastically more than if either debater decides the opponent's beliefs are useless.
Maybe their beliefs are useless? Maybe their beliefs are harmful?
Sure the opposing view is a possibility. We live in the same world here and when there are contradictory views some view has to be right.
