Why do you assume the answer others give you.

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Isn't it easier to ask " what do yoi actually mean by that?"

In fact, in human dialogue, it is often best to reflect back, in your own words, what you think someone has told you, rather than to ask them "what do you mean?" It indicates that you are making the effort to listen, which shows respect, and allows them to provide nuance to their opinion, rather than simply search for other words. After all, when somebody tells you something important to them, I think it best to assume they've chosen the best words that they are able to at the time, and for you to give them your interpretation of those words can often help them see where those words might not have been the best formulation after all.

This works especially well in actual face-to-face dialogue, especially where there is argument or disagreement. Giving someone the acknowledgement that you have actually paid attention to what they've said, by trying to give your understanding of it, is a compliment, and can help lower passions.

 

[KWED]

Sorry but your example was a poor attempt on blaming it on the believers

I assume you meant "blaming believers for sometimes neither understanding not accepting the implications of what they say".

 

[KWED]

You know very little about religion if that is what you think religious people do.

It is what I have often seen them doing. It has happened in discussions involving you.

A classic example is the Bahai obligation to accept whatever Bahaullah says without doubt "even if he says left is right and north is south".

 

[KWED]

One typical situation when I get in trouble for assuming meaning is when I read a post that is, in my eyes, so ridiculous that it makes me laugh out loud and I reward it with a smiley frubal.
Then it turns out the poster really has that ridiculous opinion and didn't mean it as a joke.

Poe's Law.

 

[KWED]

So asking for a clearer answer by saying "I did not understand, can you explain again?" That is not good because you would look like you was not wise? Or you are afraid of losing the debate?

But often the only misunderstanding is on the apologists part.
The apologist makes a statement that has certain implications (usually that the apologist hadn't anticipated). The sceptic informs the apologist of the implication of what they said. The apologists reacts angrily...

A: Nothing happens without god's will and decree.
S: So you believe that god wants babies to have cancer?
A: I didn't say that!

Hope this helped.

 

[KWED]

Because they dont judge others

So judges aren't wise?
You'd think it was a prerequisite!

(Just in case you hadn't realised, this is a perfect example of what we are talking about here.)

 

[KWED]

Did i say your name?? Did i specifically point my finger at you?
No i did not..

You assume i did.

Another good example of the very point you are asking about.
You made a statement that had certain implications. You seem unaware of those implications. People point this out. You become confused and defensive.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I can only speak for my own belief. But yes I Believe in existence of God. That means my current belief could be wrong, or somewhat wrong. I still have a lot to understand

Belief is a conviction. I don't take such statements as being provisional when using the term Belief.

 

[KWED]

Yes it is written words
But some few others put their thoughts in to what is written

Statements have meaning. The person making the statement doesn't always fully understand the potential meaning of what they say. Often because they merely quote scriptural platitudes rather than thinking an argument through.

"I don't blindly follow dogma, I just accept whatever [god/prophet/messenger] says as true because they are infallible, even if it seems nonsensical".

 

[KWED]

Yes it is written words
But some few others put their thoughts in to what is written

How else can someone respond to another than by thinking about what the first person said and thinking about how to respond.

(Yet another example of you not really understanding the implication of what you are saying, thus requiring someone else to explain to you what your words mean)

 

[Spirit of Light]

Statements have meaning. The person making the statement doesn't always fully understand the potential meaning of what they say. Often because they merely quote scriptural platitudes rather than thinking an argument through.

"I don't blindly follow dogma, I just accept whatever [god/prophet/messenger] says as true because they are infallible, even if it seems nonsensical".

Then you think you can deside what others actually mean when they say their own personal views, opinion and belief. Way to go

 

[KWED]

Then you think you can deside what others actually mean when they say their own personal views, opinion and belief. Way to go

Yes, on the basis of what they say, because words and phrases have meaning. If the person didn't mean what they said, they should not have said it. It really is quite simple.

In the example I gave in the post you just replied to, the person was trying to explain that they don't blindly follow dogma, but only succeeded in confirming that they do blindly follow dogma. However, some internal process prevents them from realising the actual meaning of what they said. This could be cognitive dissonance, a poor understanding of vocabulary and syntax, failing to think their argument through, etc.