My Thoughts on Reasoned Arguments

[Thief]

Forum veterans: What advice would you give to students who use this forum as a device to improve on their ability to reason in the context of debate?

there will never be a fingerprint, a photo, and equation or repeatable experiment

when discussing God and heaven

reason is all that you have

all you CAN do is think about it

 

[sealchan]

I think Internet forums like this one are useful for students who want to improve on their ability to reason. With that kind of reader in mind, I'll explain the use of a "reasoned argument."

If Henry makes a "reasoned argument," he states a claim and then gives reasons to support its truth. He might also add evidence to support his reasons.

If Henry claims that "Harry and Sally's marriage will never last" but he offers no reasons to support his claim, then he hasn't made a reasoned argument. His statement is simply an unsupported claim.

If Henry claims that "Harry and Sally's marriage will never last." But he then follows with reasons to support it, he has then made a reasoned argument.

If Henry's reasons aren't obviously true, they will need evidence to be persuasive.

It's a waste of time to make arguments with reasons that would only be found persuasive by people who already agree with us. It's also a waste of time to try to change the minds of opponents who are dug into their position. So, bear in mind that: The purpose of making a reasoned argument is to persuade unbiased but doubtful minds of the truth of the claim by removing their doubt.

Smart posters interested in debate, will first make sure they understand the argument in Post One of a forum like this. That often requires asking questions before writing counter-arguments. Sometimes arguments rest on word definitions. In this forum, for example, it's a good idea to find out how the word "faith" is being defined before getting into a debate.

Forum veterans: What advice would you give to students who use this forum as a device to improve on their ability to reason in the context of debate?

Contribute only when you are ready...not when you feel strongly to give an opinion or get into an argument. Too much of the latter and you have a way to raise your blood pressure and frustration...not gain any insight or knowledge.

Enter a thread with a mind to learn something new.

Ask questions before drawing conclusions

When you formulate a reasoned argument inevitably your most important audience member is...yourself.

 

[sealchan]

I admit I was basing my take of things on the persuasive power of empirical evidence to me. I'm almost never convinced of anything major until I've seen enough facts in support of it. From what I've heard, that could be due to what type or kind of personality I have -- or as my ex-wives used to say, "the kind of personality disorder" I have.

Sensation vs intuition type?

 

[joe1776]

No, not really - this isn't about "positions" to me. Clearly, we are not communicating successfully. Based on the rest of your post, I'm not sure how to resolve that, so I'm just going to shrug and move on. All I'm really saying is that the purpose of making a reasoned argument is not the same for everyone.

Okay, no problem. We disagree. I think that reasoned arguments have just one practical purpose and I've explained what that is.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I think Internet forums like this one are useful for students who want to improve on their ability to reason. With that kind of reader in mind, I'll explain the use of a "reasoned argument."

If Henry makes a "reasoned argument," he states a claim and then gives reasons to support its truth. He might also add evidence to support his reasons.

If Henry claims that "Harry and Sally's marriage will never last" but he offers no reasons to support his claim, then he hasn't made a reasoned argument. His statement is simply an unsupported claim.

If Henry claims that "Harry and Sally's marriage will never last." But he then follows with reasons to support it, he has then made a reasoned argument.

If Henry's reasons aren't obviously true, they will need evidence to be persuasive.

It's a waste of time to make arguments with reasons that would only be found persuasive by people who already agree with us. It's also a waste of time to try to change the minds of opponents who are dug into their position. So, bear in mind that: The purpose of making a reasoned argument is to persuade unbiased but doubtful minds of the truth of the claim by removing their doubt.

Smart posters interested in debate, will first make sure they understand the argument in Post One of a forum like this. That often requires asking questions before writing counter-arguments. Sometimes arguments rest on word definitions. In this forum, for example, it's a good idea to find out how the word "faith" is being defined before getting into a debate.

Forum veterans: What advice would you give to students who use this forum as a device to improve on their ability to reason in the context of debate?

To trust one's instinct, as often "Marriage won't last" comes from wisdom/experience.

To distrust one's instinct, as often, "This is my reasoned argument" has an emotional underpinning, for example, no one but born again Christians seem to be able to discuss eternal judgment calmly, reasonably, even though we really believe it can happen to loved ones.

 

[Willamena]

I seldom mention in my posts and OPs the evidence on which I base my conclusions, but that's because - despite any appearances to the contrary -- I'm largely out of the sales business these days. That is, I've mostly given up on trying change anyone's views. It's not because I think empirical evidence is of no value in persuading people. Just the opposite. It's key.

Ditto.

 

[Hawkins]

Forum veterans: What advice would you give to students who use this forum as a device to improve on their ability to reason in the context of debate?

They need to question more about the line the reasoning they obtained through the years of secular education since childhood. They need to accept the fact that humans in majority don't rely on evidence to determine or to reach a truth. Humans almost exclusively rely on putting faith in accounts of testimonies to reach a truth. This is why you can know what are happening in this world by sitting at home in front of your TV. You don't need to acquire or examine any evidence behind each piece of news. You watch and believe simply because our media is trustworthy, the testimonies of our reporters and journalists acting as witnesses are reliable and credible enough for us to put our faith in those news broadcast.

Has humans ever set foot on the surface of moon. Even with all the photos, video which are products of human technology invented in the recently in the past 100 years, even with big NASA behind, we still can't back that up with empirical evidence that humans were ever there. You still need faith to believe that humans did really set foot there. In the end, even all those videos and photos are accounts of testimonies inviting faith to believe.

As a matter of fact, our history as a whole is unsupported by empirical evidence, as history is composed of human accounts of testimonies for everyone to believe with faith, or we have no history. The Chinese claimed that Nanjing massacre (of 300,000 human lives) did happen in WWII buy denied by the Japanese. Empirical evidence never works in such a huge event and as recent as in WWII. It's by the very nature of history itself that it's unsupported by evidence. It's all a matter of human testimonies you either believe with faith (such as the Chinese) or not (such as the Japanese).

The problem of today's secular education is to get everyone brainwashed to think that every piece of truth is a science which is verifiable to provide empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is applicable to science simply because science is all about a truth which can repeat itself indefinitely for humans to examine repeatedly to get to a conclusion. Yet not every kind of truth can repeat, empirical evidence is not applicable to history because history is not repeatable. History doesn't behave like a science.

 

[Ellen Brown]

I think Internet forums like this one are useful for students who want to improve on their ability to reason. With that kind of reader in mind, I'll explain the use of a "reasoned argument."

If Henry makes a "reasoned argument," he states a claim and then gives reasons to support its truth. He might also add evidence to support his reasons.

If Henry claims that "Harry and Sally's marriage will never last" but he offers no reasons to support his claim, then he hasn't made a reasoned argument. His statement is simply an unsupported claim.

If Henry claims that "Harry and Sally's marriage will never last." But he then follows with reasons to support it, he has then made a reasoned argument.

If Henry's reasons aren't obviously true, they will need evidence to be persuasive.

It's a waste of time to make arguments with reasons that would only be found persuasive by people who already agree with us. It's also a waste of time to try to change the minds of opponents who are dug into their position. So, bear in mind that: The purpose of making a reasoned argument is to persuade unbiased but doubtful minds of the truth of the claim by removing their doubt.

Smart posters interested in debate, will first make sure they understand the argument in Post One of a forum like this. That often requires asking questions before writing counter-arguments. Sometimes arguments rest on word definitions. In this forum, for example, it's a good idea to find out how the word "faith" is being defined before getting into a debate.

Forum veterans: What advice would you give to students who use this forum as a device to improve on their ability to reason in the context of debate?

 

[joe1776]

They need to question more about the line the reasoning they obtained through the years of secular education since childhood. They need to accept the fact that humans in majority don't rely on evidence to determine or to reach a truth. Humans almost exclusively rely on putting faith in accounts of testimonies to reach a truth. This is why you can know what are happening in this world by sitting at home in front of your TV. You don't need to acquire or examine any evidence behind each piece of news. You watch and believe simply because our media is trustworthy, the testimonies of our reporters and journalists acting as witnesses are reliable and credible enough for us to put our faith in those news broadcast.

Has humans ever set foot on the surface of moon. Even with all the photos, video which are products of human technology invented in the recently in the past 100 years, even with big NASA behind, we still can't back that up with empirical evidence that humans were ever there. You still need faith to believe that humans did really set foot there. In the end, even all those videos and photos are accounts of testimonies inviting faith to believe.

As a matter of fact, our history as a whole is unsupported by empirical evidence, as history is composed of human accounts of testimonies for everyone to believe with faith, or we have no history. The Chinese claimed that Nanjing massacre (of 300,000 human lives) did happen in WWII buy denied by the Japanese. Empirical evidence never works in such a huge event and as recent as in WWII. It's by the very nature of history itself that it's unsupported by evidence. It's all a matter of human testimonies you either believe with faith (such as the Chinese) or not (such as the Japanese).

The problem of today's secular education is to get everyone brainwashed to think that every piece of truth is a science which is verifiable to provide empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is applicable to science simply because science is all about a truth which can repeat itself indefinitely for humans to examine repeatedly to get to a conclusion. Yet not every kind of truth can repeat, empirical evidence is not applicable to history because history is not repeatable. History doesn't behave like a science.

If we are unbiased and realistic, and see the evidence clearly, we will accept it as persuasive according to its quality which will vary from weak to strong.

For me, the evidence doesn't have to be replicated. I have no trouble believing that the Japanese Rape of Nanking happened, for example, because I've seen documentary films, photographs, and so on.

I have a low opinion on the quality of education in the USA. On the other hand, I see no evidence of the science brainwashing that you contend is going on. I see your statement as an example of an unsupported claim of the kind that I described in my OP.

My only gripe against Science is that it has to be done by scientists who are humans and we know that species can't be trusted.

 

[Ellen Brown]

I think Internet forums like this one are useful for students who want to improve on their ability to reason. With that kind of reader in mind, I'll explain the use of a "reasoned argument."

If Henry makes a "reasoned argument," he states a claim and then gives reasons to support its truth. He might also add evidence to support his reasons.

If Henry claims that "Harry and Sally's marriage will never last" but he offers no reasons to support his claim, then he hasn't made a reasoned argument. His statement is simply an unsupported claim.

If Henry claims that "Harry and Sally's marriage will never last." But he then follows with reasons to support it, he has then made a reasoned argument.

If Henry's reasons aren't obviously true, they will need evidence to be persuasive.

It's a waste of time to make arguments with reasons that would only be found persuasive by people who already agree with us. It's also a waste of time to try to change the minds of opponents who are dug into their position. So, bear in mind that: The purpose of making a reasoned argument is to persuade unbiased but doubtful minds of the truth of the claim by removing their doubt.

Smart posters interested in debate, will first make sure they understand the argument in Post One of a forum like this. That often requires asking questions before writing counter-arguments. Sometimes arguments rest on word definitions. In this forum, for example, it's a good idea to find out how the word "faith" is being defined before getting into a debate.

Forum veterans: What advice would you give to students who use this forum as a device to improve on their ability to reason in the context of debate?

Is debate the main purpose of this forum? I came to respectfully share experiences with others who wish to or have encountered the works of the Creator. And, largely that has been true here. In any large group of people, studying any subject, there are always a few individuals who seek to bend others to their agenda. Often they adopt Avatar names that massage their inappropriately sized egos.

I'm unsure if there is a central group whose motive is to "guide" everyone to a theological train of thought that might effectively exclude everyone outside that central group. It is most painful to attempt to find a group that does not bend the Bible, Quran, or what ever the Jews use, to fit their own personal idea what those books should say.

And I know religious leaders who have told me that in Bible College, or where ever, they were not taught to critically examine their beliefs, but to get to know their way around volumes of sermons from other experts. Where I find the most conflict is that I do not give one whit what the experts say. If I can not read the base documents in question and come to the same conclusions as they, that leaves the matter being discussed in serious question.

Admittedly, there are vast differences in interpretation between the Amish, and the Lutherans, or the Catholics and the Baptists, and for me, when those differences become divisive and lead to hateful discussions, both sides are invalid, and I leave the room. Your readings and discussions MUST lead to love of the Creator and one another, else it is all vanity.

If I have unrealistic expectations here, please tell me?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's a waste of time to make arguments with reasons that would only be found persuasive by people who already agree with us. It's also a waste of time to try to change the minds of opponents who are dug into their position. So, bear in mind that: The purpose of making a reasoned argument is to persuade unbiased but doubtful minds of the truth of the claim by removing their doubt.

In forums with an audience (e.g. this one), the "unbiased but doubtful mind" you're trying to convince doesn't necessarily have to be your debate opponent.

I've also found it useful to use a debate with an unreasonable person to refine my thoughts on an issue. It can be an excuse for me consider objections, shore up my opinions with more research, etc. Even if my opponent's points are mostly nonsense, considering the ones that are valid can be beneficial to me.

 

[joe1776]

Is debate the main purpose of this forum? ......If I have unrealistic expectations here, please tell me?

Well, the title of the forum is "General Religious Debates." However, people come here for different reasons. From what you said, I'd guess that you won't fit in here, but who knows? Try it. If your expectations are unrealistic, you'll find out soon enough.

 

[joe1776]

In forums with an audience (e.g. this one), the "unbiased but doubtful mind" you're trying to convince doesn't necessarily have to be your debate opponent.

I've also found it useful to use a debate with an unreasonable person to refine my thoughts on an issue. It can be an excuse for me consider objections, shore up my opinions with more research, etc. Even if my opponent's points are mostly nonsense, considering the ones that are valid can be beneficial to me.

Agreed. Also, tossing our arguments into a new thread is a good way to tighten them up even when much of the response is simply argumentative.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Well, the title of the forum is "General Religious Debates." However, people come here for different reasons. From what you said, I'd guess that you won't fit in here, but who knows? Try it. If your expectations are unrealistic, you'll find out soon enough.

As a Theological Generalist, I've seen many of the most hotly debated issues become meaningless to me because they lack any utility. Perhaps I simply study sociology now? I've described myself as an Abrahamic Theologist simply because I am searching for a commonality in the various "Single Deity" belief systems. What deity came before the Muslims, the Christians, the Jews and those before that like the Zoroastrians, and the Yazidis before them? It is very clear to me that the Creator, what ever we call him, was around much longer than any recorded history that any of us have.

The arguments of Religious Conservatives have grown inane and tiresome to me. Many of them speak with such acidity that they violate the words of Jesus the Christ with great abandon. Conservative Christians deceive themselves to think they are the sole servants of The One God. It's laughable to me. I've heard the same sort of bilious impassioned speech from Muslim Imams, and Jewish Rabbis, and often on the same subjects. It was the hateful conservative Christians that eventually caused me to distance myself from the whole business. Jesus talked about "the great falling away", but many modern day clerics have the meaning flipped. Perhaps the Fallen are simply searching for the truth that the Pastors did not see?

 

[joe1776]

As a Theological Generalist, I've seen many of the most hotly debated issues become meaningless to me because they lack any utility. Perhaps I simply study sociology now? I've described myself as an Abrahamic Theologist simply because I am searching for a commonality in the various "Single Deity" belief systems. What deity came before the Muslims, the Christians, the Jews and those before that like the Zoroastrians, and the Yazidis before them? It is very clear to me that the Creator, what ever we call him, was around much longer than any recorded history that any of us have.

The arguments of Religious Conservatives have grown inane and tiresome to me. Many of them speak with such acidity that they violate the words of Jesus the Christ with great abandon. Conservative Christians deceive themselves to think they are the sole servants of The One God. It's laughable to me. I've heard the same sort of bilious impassioned speech from Muslim Imams, and Jewish Rabbis, and often on the same subjects. It was the hateful conservative Christians that eventually caused me to distance myself from the whole business. Jesus talked about "the great falling away", but many modern day clerics have the meaning flipped. Perhaps the Fallen are simply searching for the truth that the Pastors did not see?

I don't have a religion or feel the need for one. However, because of an extraordinary personal experience, I believe that the existence of a Loving Creator is possible.

I think the goal of life should be to try to become a better human being. I'm legally an American but I regard myself, first and foremost, as a Global Citizen and I make my small contribution toward the goal of global harmony someday.

I don't think that , overall, religion has been good or bad. However, it's one undeniable achievement is the division of humanity up into thousands of quarreling sects. Since it's not likely to change, I see faith-based religion as an obstacle to global harmony.

 

[Ellen Brown]

I don't have a religion or feel the need for one. However, because of an extraordinary personal experience, I believe that the existence of a Loving Creator is possible.

I think the goal of life should be to try to become a better human being. I'm legally an American but I regard myself, first and foremost, as a Global Citizen and I make my small contribution toward the goal of global harmony someday.

I don't think that , overall, religion has been good or bad. However, it's one undeniable achievement is the division of humanity up into thousands of quarreling sects. Since it's not likely to change, I see faith-based religion as an obstacle to global harmony.

Our ideologies might not be far apart. I pray daily, and try to be quick to speak to the Creator to honor "him". As to the gender of the Creator, I am very open to the idea that there is none. As to Jesus the Christ, the Messiah, Issa PBUH, and perhaps the Priest of Salem (Melchizedek), the various religious systems have done a poor job of explaining about him. I heard one Jew say that he was waiting for him to come to explain the whole business.

I came from very conservative, angry God, Amish pseudo culture, and was naturally caught up in conservative Evangelical Christianity. I became involved with Islam because I wanted sincere, devout worship of the Creator. The disappointing part of Islam is that they have the idea that people are so flawed that they must ask forgiveness constantly.

It is only lately that it is clear to me that Jewish principles are spread throughout Christianity and Islam, hence the Abrahamic belief system belief designation. Oddly, most Muslims and Christians are not aware of this.

I've never been a Trinitarian and that has gotten me roundly condemned when I attended a Christian Church. The Mormons and certain other Christian faiths are not either. I'll go no further in a discussion of Mormons.

 

[joe1776]

Our ideologies might not be far apart. I pray daily, and try to be quick to speak to the Creator to honor "him". As to the gender of the Creator, I am very open to the idea that there is none. As to Jesus the Christ, the Messiah, Issa PBUH, and perhaps the Priest of Salem (Melchizedek), the various religious systems have done a poor job of explaining about him. I heard one Jew say that he was waiting for him to come to explain the whole business.

I came from very conservative, angry God, Amish pseudo culture, and was naturally caught up in conservative Evangelical Christianity. I became involved with Islam because I wanted sincere, devout worship of the Creator. The disappointing part of Islam is that they have the idea that people are so flawed that they must ask forgiveness constantly.

It is only lately that it is clear to me that Jewish principles are spread throughout Christianity and Islam, hence the Abrahamic belief system belief designation. Oddly, most Muslims and Christians are not aware of this.

I've never been a Trinitarian and that has gotten me roundly condemned when I attended a Christian Church. The Mormons and certain other Christian faiths are not either. I'll go no further in a discussion of Mormons.

If you feel the need for a church, have you considered the Unitarian-Universalist? I'm just curious. I haven't tried it but I don't feel the need to belong to a community.

 

[Ellen Brown]

If you feel the need for a church, have you considered the Unitarian-Universalist? I'm just curious. I haven't tried it but I don't feel the need to belong to a community.

I was in one more than a decade before, and the other day I noticed that they admit everyone, including Muslims. Hmmm I wonder how that works? Perhaps not Muslims that do Wudu (Ritual washing) and the usual Muslim prayers that last around 10 minutes. I could go to one to try it, I suppose.

Lately, Religion has been more of an intellectual exercise.

 

[Katzpur]

I've never been a Trinitarian and that has gotten me roundly condemned when I attended a Christian Church. The Mormons and certain other Christian faiths are not either. I'll go no further in a discussion of Mormons.

Well that's certainly a refreshing change.