Irrational acts.
Sometimes, I try to explain things to people. There are simple ideals that I try to educate, and I hardly bother with trying to explain what may seem like rocket science to people. I'm not saying that they are dumb and that I am smart, although admittedly, I AM smart, but my point is that there are things that are easy to grasp, and that sometimes I do try to disseminate such information.
We all have our different perspectives and opinions and they normally clash because of our different values. Our paradigms define us. Take for example a religious person and an atheist. The atheist is anti-religion, the religious person is, well, religious. Arguments between these 2 types of people might become fiery due to this difference in paradigm and each individual's attempts at inducing a paradigm shift. It becomes personal, because religion is something people build their lives around. It is also understandable that such debates could ruffle some feathers.
Perhaps the act of debating with a religious person using science is already an irrational one, which in turn induces irrational responses from the religious person who would then be a victim. No, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that religion is irrational. I'm saying that the act of speaking against religion is irrational. And why is that so? How could anyone hope to induce such a huge paradigm shift of a religious person in a short time frame of a debate? It's a waste of both the speaker's time and the audience's, because if one is into religion, one is into religion and nothing can shake that faith.
Moreover, by attacking religion, the perpetrator is already committing 1) an irrational act, 2) an act of provocation.
It is for these reasons that I've stopped speaking against religious people. I can't change them, they can't change me, we co-exist better this way.
There are other values and cultures which people hold true. When we discuss such things callously, people can feel victimized. However, I do not understand why such discussions cannot be held in the first place. It probably is pointless, but it is still important to note that no one has the rights to piss all over another person unless provoked explicitly. I don't think I provoked you explicitly, and even if I did I apologized. I believe I presented my argument objectively, but left you a sliver of hope that it's different for you. I know it was quite wrong of me to have started on that topic in the first place, but I haven't exploded on you.
You're angry, I understand. Do what you deem fit when you've regained your composure.
-- 9/16/2010 01:46:00 AM
