Quote:
Originally Posted by Solon
I never asked you to accept my view as authority, but I do ask you to provide rational counter-argument instead of accusations of small-mindedness. If you think I'm full of sh*t, compile some evidence and lay the smack. I think my facts are fairly well accepted (at least, in regards to the opening post in this thread). If you disagree with the interpretation, please provide an alternative voice. I would genuinely like to hear some opinions on this phenomenon.
I never intend to browbeat, but to set forth my views with as much supporting evidence as I can, and I do my best to make a persuasive case for my ideas. I don't ask anyone to accept my view "as authority" but to reach his/her own conclusions. If there's a way to refute or oppose my views with rational, logical, fact-based arguments, I welcome the dialogue. I'm always open to a well formed, well researched argument, and am willing to be persuaded (if the argument is good enough). I don't know everything, nor have I have ever claimed to.
If my ideas oppose your personal convictions, I don't mean to offend. If you're happy and secure with your convictions, what does it matter is someone wonders, or even believes differently? It's not like I've singled out anyone personally, intending to undermine his/her faith.
You'll notice I posted this in the Religious Studies, not in the Religion category.
|
The irony … you don't have to ask, it's implied ... pedestaled by you very request to provide rational counter-argument. From the get go any argument I might make is at a disadvantage because it is not yet deemed rational?
Furthermore you outline the conditions for any such challenge of the authority of your fact based opinions by demanding the argument be ‘good enough’ … what is ‘good enough’? By what standard is ‘good enough’ measured?
I happily am the braying ass in this thread.