Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
https://thequestion.ru/questions/474266
Let's take a look here. What will we see? That there is a war going on in the ratings for the answers. All the answers are covered up, whether they are believers or atheists. Calm responses are slightly less minuscule. Aggressive a little more.
Did atheists put disadvantages to my answer? Or maybe the atheists have put disadvantages to the answer of Alexander Zaitsev?
And here is the answer of Agnivesh Das. 10 minuses. Who will raise a hand to say that these disadvantages are unfounded? No one asked him to comment on scientific facts.
So whose answer to that question is absurd, but at the same time flattened? And whose answer is omitted from the case?
My answers are often ignored by believers, who see me as an atheist, and atheists as a believer. Worldview is a very acute and conflicting area. In it, everyone thinks of themselves as a great specialist, while considering professional philosophers to be a useless piece of meat (quote from the comments on one question). A couple of years ago, I drew the attention of the project administration to this. They believed that well-given answers to the plus question would eventually win out. Then such answers were added to those whose vote is equal to seven.
I didn't notice this in my answers. I believe in God, my profile is just Christianity (and a touch of Islam), and I have never been rejected for answering religious questions, although some of them may not objectively suit the reader or the author of the question due to the position of the church or the postulates of religion.
In general, the contingent here is diverse, there are really smart people who are interesting to read, and there are also mom's maximalists who have objectivity and acceptance of the opponent's position at zero.
Hmm, well, I'm agnostic. I don't discount people for believing in God. but I don't praise them either.
argumentation is important to me. and frankness.
even if the person says yes, I believe it, because I like
it… good. honest and open, worthy of approval.
I don't like people hiding behind religion. Wow, that's mean.
But I didn't notice that those who believe in something are fiercely despised here.
It seems to me that the answers of those who consider their rank, position, and awareness of the situation higher than others are negative. For example, “only scientists can know,” or “only believers can answer,” or ” how can you not understand such a simple truth?”
Such condescending responses will be annoying and get negatives, even unjustified ones.
If a person humbly expresses his position, without rejecting other opinions, without condemning the author of the question, then it will be ignored much less often.
On the one hand, faith in God is not something that is very popular in society today, it is true-these are the trends. However, as I have noticed, if you speak unobtrusively, calmly and argumentatively on this topic, even non-believers can benefit from your normally expressed argumentation. Of course, there are controversial points and questions that are asked radically and require radical answers, but even here, a benevolent position is usually rarely strongly minus.�
Believers usually add disadvantages to themselves when they add to their faith in God their obsession, their don Quixotry, their fanatical statements, the intensity of passions, their rudeness, etc. When they demonstrate intolerance, categorical, dogmatism, when they behave like “neophytes” – immature, acting in the spirit of -“Carthage must be destroyed.”�
These two points should be taken into account, in my opinion.
Recently, there was a believer here-like a normal guy, but apparently young and very hot and all that-began to ask questions like-why is there such a Conspiracy, why does America want to destroy Orthodoxy, why do you believe in this and not that? To many questions he answered immediately, that is the question asked in such a way that he was like an answer, the man did not want to learn something – he wanted something all the “grind“exactly “to grind” – of course this “wild message” was banned for several days. He collected a couple of hundred minuses – then declared that he was persecuted like a prophet, etc. This is very simplistic, I hope you understand what I mean.
Can't you go into a little more detail? Who do you mean by “biased people” and who are “those who are guided by absurd arguments”? Please provide some examples.