What is the underlying Rift on this board?

[jascowhiz0]

There is one or possibly a few very basic things that if two people disagree on no matter what topic one talks about there will be major disagreement, unless one side is contradictory and does not realize it.

So what is it? I have a vague idea, but I don't know what basic disagreement the rift is.

I do know it can not be solely God/god/gods/Gods because Religion and God are not needed to have contradictory positions in most arguments.

[Slevin57]

Well there are always those never ending debates: God, Guns, Iraq, Abortion, Country ("Canada is better then everyone because..." "The US rules because..") etc., etc.,

[CoffeeSaint]

One basic underlying rift is indeed god vs. no god. If there is a god, it has many implications in terms of the preciousness of life, in terms of morality and prescribing morality for others, and all of those would be opposed by a no-god person. Another is individual vs. collective. Another is science vs. tradition. I actually think there are several underlying rifts that separate different posters from each other in different debates; the longer you post here, the more you will see that the person that you NEVER agreed with is suddenly making a lot of sense. Osborn F. Enready and I totally and completely disagree on guns and the right to bear arms, but we agree completely on drug prohibition and abortion. Go figure.

[Osborn F Enready]

Its authoritarianism vs libertarianism.

Almost every issue seems to reduce to the use of government FORCE.

[fushigi]

Personally, I think the difference is inductive vs. deductive reasoning. Inductive types like to say "Conclusion A is correct, therefore opinions D, E, and F." Deductive types like to say, "Due to evidence X, Y, and Z, conclusion B appears to be correct. Therefore opinions D, E, and F."

This difference is also often delineated as rationalistic vs. empirical thought. I'd like to think I'm one of the latter.

The former leads to dangerous situations. Revolutionaries are often rationalists; they pursue their policies despite evidence that their actions are clearly harming others to a significant degree (Nazis, Maoists, Neocons).

The clearest way to determine whether someone is an inductive rationalist is to see whether their views ever change, even by the slightest degree. If they don't, they are an inductive rationalist.

[PatrickHenry]

Skeptics and True Believers are the opponents.

The subject matter varies.

[Jack]

Going on threads I've seen, I'd say there are nearly countless matters over which we've managed to disagree in varying combinations. Women vs. men, believers vs. non-believers, vegans vs. carnivores, conspiratorially inclined vs. the nay-sayers, lovers vs. haters, gun owners vs. non-owners, those who can type for comprehension vs. those who don't. In short, there are always those with whom I disagree depending on the topic. There's no one here I agree with 100% of the time (some approach 90%, though).

[fushigi]

Part of the problem is the prevalence of the fallacy that there are only two sides to a debate.

[Osborn F Enready]

I wonder how that fallacy gets so much credit as being true? (Has nothing to do with only democrats and republicans representing 300,000,000 peopls choices, of course)

[phoenix_fire]

Well, most people have an underlying ethos that dictates most of their opinions on most everything else. That assumption in the OP is correct. The problem is that it is different for most everyone.

To people like the not-so-dearly departed underbear1, everything is about homosexuality and every debate he took part in was based on that. For Oz, it all comes down to least restrictive government. I largely think that Zhavric is all about trying to make theists cry...not that it's worked on me. pam699 was all about trying to justify being as grammatically obnoxious as possible. SHW, whom I suspect of being a Jain, is motivated by strong vegetarianism.

But then there are some that are more difficult to pin down. My hobbies on this board, for instance, are observing what people think and why and trying to confuse the heck out of people in any way possible as to who I really am. My thoughts and actions are dictated by my faith, but you may not catch that immediately. Many others are like that.

So it makes things a little cacophonous.

[ZNFYRH]

I think the majority of major disagreements occur between two people who actually agree on an issue, but don't realize it because they are clinging to their own personal terminology.

I've read lots of threads where Autolykos and Fonceai argued a lot but turned out that they were talking about the same thing but with two different names.

Or when two people have the same conclusion but get to it through completely different lines of reasoning and start arguing over their reasoning.

[fushigi]

phoenix_fire: awesome post, great analysis.

ZNF: I disagree that what you described happens OFTEN (though I had to ignore iclaudius because he liked to agree with my point but debate me based on syntax and grammar points). There is a BIG rift between, for example, people who think guns are the right way to prevent violence vs. those who think they CAUSE violence, people who believe fetuses are humans vs. those who think they're just a parasite inside a woman's body, people who think US military intervention makes us safer vs. those who argue it produces MORE security threats, and so forth.

These aren't just arguments on vernacular--they're patent, utter divergent views based on divergent personal conclusions on morality, existence, and rights.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Well, most people have an underlying ethos that dictates most of their opinions on most everything else. That assumption in the OP is correct. The problem is that it is different for most everyone. To people like the not-so-dearly departed underbear1, everything is about homosexuality and every debate he took part in was based on that. For Oz, it all comes down to least restrictive government. I largely think that Zhavric is all about trying to make theists cry...not that it's worked on me. pam699 was all about trying to justify being as grammatically obnoxious as possible. SHW, whom I suspect of being a Jain, is motivated by strong vegetarianism. But then there are some that are more difficult to pin down. My hobbies on this board, for instance, are observing what people think and why and trying to confuse the heck out of people in any way possible as to who I really am. My thoughts and actions are dictated by my faith, but you may not catch that immediately. Many others are like that. So it makes things a little cacophonous.

Cool. You and I have had a few debates and I was wondering if you have noticed any underlining agendas on my part relative to how I handle debates in general. Do I seem to have any goals or objectives or fixations that have become a kind of repeated format for my messages.

Please be forthright as I will not take offense at your opinons. Nor even debate them. PS - am I cacophonous... sometimes logical and sometimes radical and far out? Or one-sided in my viewpoints?

[Technosoul]

Jas, I assume you are asking only about this particular board for religion and philosophy (rather then all the boards here at Volconvo).

In the 1950s most people did not talk about religion, politics, sex, or much else except what the weather was like. In the 1960s things started to change and some of the old taboos started to fade away relative to reading materials, but even so, at work it was still polite not to "open a can of worms" because heated debates would damage freindly working arrangements, same might have been true for other social events. But then came the computer and our forums and chat rooms and we met people who we can speak our mind's too without fear of up-setting our "real life" social environment where we actually work, play, and so forth. We are at last free to debate ... with our new found collection of "E" people. Hi all you e-people!

So I think that is what makes this borad speical - because it offers us a kind of freedom of speech we cannot experience "flesh to flesh" with people whom we are partly co-dependant upon. We have a "distance" involved and also "no faces" and so we are not intimidated by people who might look important because of their appearences. In the world of e-people we all have a kind of equality that is rarely experienced in this world of ranking orders and experts. No PHDs following our nicknames.
We could even venture into aspects of anarchy while maintaining that activity in a structured and monitored environment.

Acturally not all people acturally debate a topic but use it as a springboard to preach, teach, learn, or just screech. But others acturally do debate and because so many facts and ideas and feelings surface that this is a great service to humanity even if no final answer or solution becomes evident. At least we know all points of view on a given topic. Which is great research material (if people knew how to tap into these files for such a purpose).

And so this is a "free zone" to say what you think or to contest those concepts you do not like that others might present.

[jascowhiz0]

All of this is interesting info. Thanks for replying.

[Osborn F Enready]

I personally think all underlying rifts come from the sanction, or non-sanction of the use of force for anything other than defense on every level, from individual to the national collectives or global collective.

Its an issue of competing ideology and philosophies, and it is made even more confusing by people who refuse to call religion what it is, a philosophy, that entails everything from economics to social rights.

A large part of the problem is that religion is the one philosophy not expected to be held to the same measure of objective proof, that all others are measured by. The classic "rigged game".

[Jack]

To add to phoenix_fire's observation; one frequent division I run across is between those who contend they have the right and final answer and those who are willing to admit they don't know everything. It arises in different contexts from politics to religion. I could say it's the rift between absolutists and relativists, but that's too simplistic a statement.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Isherwood To add to phoenix_fire's observation; one frequent division I run across is between those who contend they have the right and final answer and those who are willing to admit they don't know everything. It arises in different contexts from politics to religion. I could say it's the rift between absolutists and relativists, but that's too simplistic a statement.

I'm not so sure about that. Most people won't flatly admit that they have everything entirely correct. Especially on this board. But nearly everyone will act like it. Most theists believe that, overall, they believe in the actual and absolute truth of the universe, but there are still several things that they will admit to not understanding. A lot of people, however, will cover over their own shortcomings with bluster and scripted responses. Both atheists and theists here would probably agree with the statement "I don't understand it all, but I know enough". Even agnostics maintain an idea of agnosticism that they usually aren't interested in changing. They are determined and have firmly decided not to make a decision. And that, I think, is a kind of belief in itself. It is certainly a dogma. Whether the belief is an affirmative one or not, it is still a belief and people are still here to defend their conclusions. Some people change their conclusions over time, but in this kind of forum, it is always about arguing a position.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Technosoul Cool. You and I have had a few debates and I was wondering if you have noticed any underlining agendas on my part relative to how I handle debates in general. Do I seem to have any goals or objectives or fixations that have become a kind of repeated format for my messages. Please be forthright as I will not take offense at your opinons. Nor even debate them. PS - am I cacophonous... sometimes logical and sometimes radical and far out? Or one-sided in my viewpoints?

Those were the ones that I could think of off the top of my head. I would have to go back through some stuff to remember if I had formed any opinions of that nature where you are concerned. Sorry I could not be more helpful.

[ZNFYRH]

Osborn

Umm, this is about the rift on Volconvo, not the rift in the country.

Though now I have something to post in the "bone to pick with Osborn" thread... ::