No, it's not. Anyone can and will believe anything they want regardless of anyone else's stated beliefs. There is no need for argument or debate to maintain this freedom. And usually there is no call for it. Yet many of us just can't seem to restrain ourselves. And I think if we were to honestly investigate this, we would find our own egos to be the actual motive behind it.
Right or wrong, silence is often considered acceptance or consent.
Is there something wrong with seeking comfort?
That isn't a point of the debate. In certain context, no in others, yes.
And keep in mind that we humans don't get to know the truth.
I don't know that is a fact. What we don't get seems to be to know if something is a truth or not. We may actually have it. Who can say.
All we get are a bunch of relatively true fact, from which we're just making 'the truth', up.
Coming to conclusions on the best evidence and information we have.
What form of authority does? What social structure could?
I think that is the point. People with certain religious beliefs hold those beliefs as facts and don't like them challenged. The problem here is that any challenge is considered to be insult by those that hold the views. That isn't a "truth" either. Often, it isn't even a true fact.
Facts are just relative bits of information that are true or false in relation to other relative bits of information. They mislead us just as easily and often as they illuminate is. Let's not make more of them than they are.
It isn't the facts that mislead us. It is the conclusions based on them or conclusions based on no facts.
Welcome to an important aspect of the human condition. One that defines us as being human, on fact.
And this can be questioned in the proper context. Which is where we are.
On the other hand, arguing endlessly with no intention of actually learning anything new, but instead to force our opinions and views on everyone else because we are so convinced that we are right isn't a very wise or productive methodology, either.
Have you learned anything in all of this that alters your view or do you consider it all just to reinforce your view that you are not going to change in light of this new information? How is expressing an opinion forcing it on others? I would say that I do see attempts to do that here, but they usually consist of a pattern of behavior that is pretty obvious.
Is it. Especially for a collective, cooperative species like humans.
I think it is important and part of our species cooperative behavior. Even cultures that reject modern technology, still end up using it and benefiting from it.
Yes, "civil discourse"; as opposed to constant judgment and correction.
Sometimes, it is a part of civil discourse to point out facts that are not facts.
That never happens, though, because no human sees and understands the world the same as any other. In fact, despots have been trying to enforce such conformity for eons, and have always failed. We humans need to 'conform' to survive, and we have been struggling with how to do that, forever.
It seems like you are arguing against debate and that it will lead no where.
When we attack people for just sharing their worldview with us, they do tend to defend themselves. But this isn't really a debate. it's just a battle of egos from which no one actually learns anything but further entrenched self-righteousness.
This assumes that these attacks happen from the start. Some do. Not all do. And often those "sharing" their world view seem to consider any response that is not complete acceptance is an attack.
Not every conversation or discussion is a debate. Nor should they be.
True. But in a debate, much of it is.
When we attack people for the way they think, becaue they don't think like us, they tend to counter-attack.
And that seems to be part of the problem that launched this thread.
That's not debate. That's just a battle of egos. Which is what most people on here think is "debate".
Again, whose egos? The attacker or the attacked? The tenor of your position seems to be placing all the onus on one side here.
Again, welcome to the human condition and it's inevitable limitations.
Limitations aside, I believe that is the point here. You seem to be saying we should accept even manipulated facts and erroneous claims without question or challenge. How would that be civil discourse?
Everyone pretty much already is. It's why they think as they do, and believe what they believe. The question to us, is, are we willing to learn from them? Or are we only interested in 'correcting them' according to our own worldview?
I have learned from debate here. Even in the form that it takes here. And I have learned that not everyone claiming offense has truly been offended either.
"Belief" is a dishonest position that's being instigated by our ego.
Huh?
And unless we learn how to control our ego, it's a position that we will continue to hold and defend regardless of the negative consequences.
I don't think that the claim that certain theists are being insulted out of the gate is correct. Those certain theists have been here for some time and know the score. They have their own behaviors and responses that are not often made civilly or in a vacuum.
