Atheist Nexus Logo

Should You Be Offended When I Tell You That You're Wrong?

Are people generally rational or irrational and has that changed over the course of history?

 

Rationality is the operation of reason; the weighing of options and assessing benefits over costs in the process of attaining goals or solving a problems.

 

Should we work towards replacing other functions of thought with rationality and seek to maximize rationality in our decision making?

 

If so, what are some ways we can maximize our rationality and more importantly, how can we facilitate the rationalization of others without them being offended? So often when I am having a discussion of beliefs with someone, they are offended to hear when I disagree and this leads to not only a lack of understanding, but a conversation that benefits neither party. Sometimes this leaves a stain on the relationship. It seems primitive that someone would be offended at the notion that they might be wrong. Personally I value the chance to be told I am wrong, because only two things can happen out of that: 1. I will learn something, or 2. I will teach something. Either way society is better off; overall knowledge will have increased; and thus overall welfare will have increased.

 

So riddle me this people of The Atheist Nexus: How can we align the people around us more closely to logic and effective thought processes without burning bridges and coming off narcissistic?

Tags: disagree, false, knowledge, logic, max, offend, offensive, philosophy, rational, rationality, More…rationalize, reason, right, society, true, weber, welfare, wrong

Views: 214

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

darryl stanfa.  Typing all capital letters in a post is the same as yelling at your reader.    You have used an elevated voice here.

DOGLY. I ALWAYS USE CAPITALIZED LETTERS WHEN TYPING. NO OFFENSE MEANT.

Offense is taken.  It is hard to read.  It is disrespectful of your reader.  It is lazy.  You are yelling at me again.  Please stop.  If you care to communicate in a respectful, polite way, you will type normally.

« Il n'y a que deux puissances au monde , le sabre et l' esprit : à la longue , le sabre est toujours vaincu par l' esprit. »

de Napoléon Bonaparte

Once had a believer start his argument with "What if the world was only 6000 years old?"  All I could do was laugh out loud right in his face and dismissed him with my hand and walked away.  From that point on I now actually get offended when people try to talk their creationist bullshit to me anymore and see no reason to coddle them as they try to explain their assinine and degrading "God Hypothesis".  The arrogance it requires to blithely reject all other forms of knowledge in favor of the prescription contained in a single book written by nomadic shepherds roaming in a environment full of malevolent gods 2000 years ago is so breathtakingly intellectually dishonest to me that I no longer feel it should be even be given the courtesy of answer much less any sort of a "discussion". The God Hypothesis MUST be rejected at every turn. And perhaps even vehemently so. 

RSS

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service