In principle I believe it is good to argue - you can't be just opinionated, you have to able to defend your
convictions, otherwise (to my mind) they are worthless.
But granted, sometimes people just can't be convinced. You can explain and argue all you want but they just
won't listen to reason....Or is it you that won't be convinced?
Thats the one drawback of a written argument - you don't have to read it - you can skim down to the Reply box,
state your opinion and leave again. At best you don't read all 50 or more posts thoroughly....you skim over the
posts to get the genereal gist of the argument, post your opinion and leave again. It is the minority of cases when
people will actually argue "face to face" (while online and typing) on each other's arguments.
But even then arguing strengthens your convictions, each practice gives you more ammunition for the next. I believe we
don't have to convince anyone on anything - we must just argue coherently and plausibly. Yes, religion sometimes
playes a major role in a person's convictions and then it is usually impossible to get around them (I must admit
though that I don't hold religious reasons [because God said so or did that] in extremely high esteem. Religions
differ and don't hold any ground with each other. Therefore I will be convinced by someone who can use facts (on
imperical topics), and logic argumentation (on humanatarian and philisophical topics).
But I don't contribute to a forum with the goal to convince someone to think like I do. The forum is public, and I
ONLY give MY opinion. IF, however, someone questions my opinion and proceeds to poke holes in it, then I will defend it
accordingly. But I will adapt my opinion if convinced.
But yes, ego. It doesn't allow you to even try to see the other person's view. Admittedly its basically
impossible for me to see someone from a different culture, religion and ideology's viewpoint, so I can only look at
his written argument and poke holes in THAT.
But I don't hate anyone for having an different opinion. I just get irritated if they can't argue (or give
poor or no arguments) but are still adamant that they are correct. They may be, but if they can't convince me with
a written argument, then I can't be convinced.
Quote by mireya2And, IT'S MORE DIFFICULT TO HAVE FAITH, THAN
"BELIEVING" ONLY IN HARD FACTS.
For me the one led to the other...because I wasn't
satisfied with merely believeing (I wanted to know as fact), I dug in deeper into the histories of my religion, trying
to earth the cold hard facts. I wanted to accept Jesus as much a historical person than say any Roman emperor. In the
one you have to BELIEVE (blind faith), and the other just is. Or was. I wanted my religion to be a historical topic, not
only religious. But not through blind faith....I wanted to make my understanding of religion a historical reality as
much as anything else non-religious and historical.
What I found, however, was / is still a bit difficult to accept if you want to stay religious (for me at least). I know
a bit of general religions and such, but also of historiography, and the one, unfortunatley, are based on more facts
than the other.
So I believe it is easier to keep yourself ignorant and just have blind faith than to make facts and belief work
together.