• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Loving our enemies and whatnot.

Status
Not open for further replies.

cantata

Queer non-theist, with added jam.
Feb 20, 2007
6,215
683
38
Oxford, UK
✟32,193.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Here's another housekeeping sort of thread. I just wanted to remind everyone that most people are not malicious.

Here in E&M, we talk about big, controversial issues every day, and blood pressures run very high, which is understandable. When we're having discussions about what some people regard to be civil or natural rights, it's inevitable that people on both sides of the argument will tend to find it difficult to see what positive ethical reasons their opposition might have for holding their views. But in almost every case, I think that people do have those reasons, although of course they may be bad or incorrect reasons. Most people think they are doing the right thing. And in our debates, we would usually do well to remember that, because these days we all seem to be wasting a lot of time speculating about the malicious motivations of the people with whom we disagree.

On the other side of the coin, although we like to think of ourselves as rational creatures, the fact is that people find themselves persuaded by arguments not just because of the logical soundness of those arguments, but because of confirmation bias - and that applies to every single one of us. We are all prone to errors of reasoning or to simply siding with the side we always side with because of our prejudices. We do this because we are human, and none of us is free of it.

I'm loath to use specific examples because I don't want to turn this thread into an argument about any of those tedious topics that always take up 70% of the threads on the forum page. I hope others won't turn this thread into one of those, either. My message here is that we would all do well to try to think about others' reasons for feeling the way they do about things, and also to have a little humility and remember that we are just as likely to suffer from confirmation bias as those we oppose.

To love your enemies is quite a difficult thing to do, but there is a point to it: if you have a go at loving them, you can also have a go at understanding them and their reasons for feeling the way they do. And vice versa. :) It's a bit rich to claim you love your enemies but never make the effort to try to understand why they feel the way they do, and to think that perhaps there are genuine and sincere concerns behind their views - sincere even though they may be mistaken.

Peace and love and all that.
 

stan1980

Veteran
Jan 7, 2008
3,238
261
✟27,040.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
remember that we are just as likely to suffer from confirmation bias as those we oppose.

I respect you're trying to be diplomatic in this thread, but I just can't sit here and take that lie!

Every study I've seen, would suggest conservatives are far more prone to confirmation bias than liberals. That is, conservatives are more likely to accept weak evidence that supports their position and are more likely to refute strong evidence that contradicts their position. We see this in the debates a lot I'm sure you'll agree.

Perhaps the simplest study is this one. To cut a long story short, a 'W' or an 'M' was presented on a screen. Every time the participant saw a 'W' on the screen he had to tap a button, every time they saw an 'M' they were not to respond. The W appeared 4 times as often as the M, meaning it was more likely that the participant would accidentally respond when they weren't supposed to. The Liberals far outscored the Conservatives, showing that they deal with conflict better. So there!

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v10/n10/abs/nn1979.html

http://www.psych.nyu.edu/amodiolab/Amodio%20et%20al.%20%282007%29%20Nature%20Neuro.pdf

http://www.nyu.edu/public.affairs/releases/detail/1703

Or maybe perhaps I'm just saying all this as I am more prone to confirmation bias.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cantata
Upvote 0

cantata

Queer non-theist, with added jam.
Feb 20, 2007
6,215
683
38
Oxford, UK
✟32,193.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
I respect you're trying to be diplomatic in this thread, but I just can't sit here and take that lie!

Every study I've seen, would suggest conservatives are far more prone to confirmation bias than liberals. That is, conservatives are more likely to accept weak evidence that supports their position and are more likely to refute strong evidence that contradicts their position. We see this in the debates a lot I'm sure you'll agree.

Perhaps the simplest study is this one. To cut a long story short, a 'W' or an 'M' was presented on a screen. Every time the participant saw a 'W' on the screen he had to tap a button, every time they saw an 'M' they were not to respond. The W appeared 4 times as often as the M, meaning it was more likely that the participant would accidentally respond when they weren't supposed to. The Liberals far outscored the Conservatives, showing that they deal with conflict better. So there!

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v10/n10/abs/nn1979.html

http://www.psych.nyu.edu/amodiolab/Amodio et al. (2007) Nature Neuro.pdf

http://www.nyu.edu/public.affairs/releases/detail/1703

Or maybe perhaps I'm just saying all this as I am more prone to confirmation bias.

*grin*
 
Upvote 0

Polycarp_fan

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2008
5,069
100
✟6,323.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Here's another housekeeping sort of thread. I just wanted to remind everyone that most people are not malicious.

But what about those that cruise around places where people obviously oppose everything they stand for? What about ulterior motives? Many are maliscious and malevolent. So many non and anti Christians are here just to bash and recruit.

Here in E&M, we talk about big, controversial issues every day, and blood pressures run very high, which is understandable.

NO, it is not. This is only a fact-finding mission for some of us.

When we're having discussions about what some people regard to be civil or natural rights, it's inevitable that people on both sides of the argument will tend to find it difficult to see what positive ethical reasons their opposition might have for holding their views.

What about seduction and recruiting? or what about just plain attacking and hurting?

But in almost every case, I think that people do have those reasons, although of course they may be bad or incorrect reasons. Most people think they are doing the right thing. And in our debates, we would usually do well to remember that, because these days we all seem to be wasting a lot of time speculating about the malicious motivations of the people with whom we disagree.

When observing political and social power, there is a strong reason to mistrust ones opponent. Humanism, for example, is methodicaly implemented by humanists to recruit and create more humanists for political and social reengineering and to gain power and authority to being able to access even more recruits on an unfair playing field.

On the other side of the coin, although we like to think of ourselves as rational creatures, the fact is that people find themselves persuaded by arguments not just because of the logical soundness of those arguments, but because of confirmation bias - and that applies to every single one of us.

Lust, libido and self aggrandizement drives many opinions. C'mon now.

We are all prone to errors of reasoning or to simply siding with the side we always side with because of our prejudices. We do this because we are human, and none of us is free of it.

But what if we have formed our opinions from much real life experience and research?

I'm loath to use specific examples because I don't want to turn this thread into an argument about any of those tedious topics that always take up 70% of the threads on the forum page.

It'll break down to "you know what," no matter how you try to stay away from "it."

I hope others won't turn this thread into one of those, either. My message here is that we would all do well to try to think about others' reasons for feeling the way they do about things, and also to have a little humility and remember that we are just as likely to suffer from confirmation bias as those we oppose.

Fair enough. Will every side stick to the contract?

To love your enemies is quite a difficult thing to do,

In a natural world view, it is counter productive. No lion loves a hyena. No gazelle sings the praises of the jackal.

. . . but there is a point to it: if you have a go at loving them, you can also have a go at understanding them and their reasons for feeling the way they do.

But what if that is seen as weakness, capitulation, and support? Or even promotion?

And vice versa. It's a bit rich to claim you love your enemies but never make the effort to try to understand why they feel the way they do, and to think that perhaps there are genuine and sincere concerns behind their views - sincere even though they may be mistaken.

Only by actions can we see a resolution.

Peace and love and all that.

What kind?
 
Upvote 0

Funny Fundie

Active Member
Oct 30, 2008
197
10
✟383.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I respect you're trying to be diplomatic in this thread, but I just can't sit here and take that lie!

Every study I've seen, would suggest conservatives are far more prone to confirmation bias than liberals. That is, conservatives are more likely to accept weak evidence that supports their position and are more likely to refute strong evidence that contradicts their position. We see this in the debates a lot I'm sure you'll agree.

Perhaps the simplest study is this one. To cut a long story short, a 'W' or an 'M' was presented on a screen. Every time the participant saw a 'W' on the screen he had to tap a button, every time they saw an 'M' they were not to respond. The W appeared 4 times as often as the M, meaning it was more likely that the participant would accidentally respond when they weren't supposed to. The Liberals far outscored the Conservatives, showing that they deal with conflict better. So there!

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v10/n10/abs/nn1979.html

http://www.psych.nyu.edu/amodiolab/Amodio et al. (2007) Nature Neuro.pdf

http://www.nyu.edu/public.affairs/releases/detail/1703

Or maybe perhaps I'm just saying all this as I am more prone to confirmation bias.

Dude libs are just as bad as neocons.
I always thaoght that if a liberal were brought up in a conservative household he'd be a neocon by now and vice-versa.

That exceedingly lame study you cited was inherently biased, due to the stigma attached with the capital letter "W". Why couldn't you see the faulty study for what it was?
 
Upvote 0

Funny Fundie

Active Member
Oct 30, 2008
197
10
✟383.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
In Relationship
To love your enemies is quite a difficult thing to do, but there is a point to it: if you have a go at loving them, you can also have a go at understanding them and their reasons for feeling the way they do. And vice versa. :) It's a bit rich to claim you love your enemies but never make the effort to try to understand why they feel the way they do, and to think that perhaps there are genuine and sincere concerns behind their views - sincere even though they may be mistaken.

Peace and love and all that.

Cantada comes up with a good topic!

Anyways, I highlited the impossibility in bold, above. In fact, the fact we are not capable of loving our enemies is proof of the divinity of Jesus Christ (or if it's not proof of the hitherto, it is strong evidence in favor of it)! Remember, in Luke 6:27; those immortal words? Love your enemies? An impossible charge! And stated by Jesus just to show us how sinful we really are, and how much we need Him in our lives. [/soapbox] :preach:
 
Upvote 0

Verv

Senior Veteran
Apr 17, 2005
7,277
672
Gyeonggido
✟40,959.00
Country
Korea, Republic Of
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Just as a note -- the love your enemies idea is such a profound idea and one that is probably hardest for the average person to pick up on or to embrace in any manner whatsoever.

It is a very profound Christian doctrine.

It also makes sense intellectualy -- we note that very rarely does the opposition ever hope for anything evil to befall ourselves or desire an evil outcome but rather we merely disagree on the means and the end goals.

We do have room to love one another.

I respect you're trying to be diplomatic in this thread, but I just can't sit here and take that lie!

Every study I've seen, would suggest conservatives are far more prone to confirmation bias than liberals. That is, conservatives are more likely to accept weak evidence that supports their position and are more likely to refute strong evidence that contradicts their position. We see this in the debates a lot I'm sure you'll agree.

Perhaps the simplest study is this one. To cut a long story short, a 'W' or an 'M' was presented on a screen. Every time the participant saw a 'W' on the screen he had to tap a button, every time they saw an 'M' they were not to respond. The W appeared 4 times as often as the M, meaning it was more likely that the participant would accidentally respond when they weren't supposed to. The Liberals far outscored the Conservatives, showing that they deal with conflict better. So there!

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v10/n10/abs/nn1979.html

http://www.psych.nyu.edu/amodiolab/Amodio et al. (2007) Nature Neuro.pdf

http://www.nyu.edu/public.affairs/releases/detail/1703

Or maybe perhaps I'm just saying all this as I am more prone to confirmation bias.

I really do not believe this in the least.

Conservatives tend to favor some of the most common sense arguments while liberals are the ones advocating economic systems that crumble to dust in their own fingers and breed inefficiency.

It is also true that liberals are far more prone to thinking with their heart, so to speak, and to giving handouts to anyoen who asks; blaming all of their problems on class war instead of actual flaws in the persons behavior.
 
Upvote 0

stan1980

Veteran
Jan 7, 2008
3,238
261
✟27,040.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I really do not believe this in the least.

With all due respect, you wouldn't!

Conservatives tend to favor some of the most common sense arguments while liberals are the ones advocating economic systems that crumble to dust in their own fingers and breed inefficiency.

It is also true that liberals are far more prone to thinking with their heart, so to speak, and to giving handouts to anyoen who asks; blaming all of their problems on class war instead of actual flaws in the persons behavior.

You're interchanging liberals with socialists. Not all liberals are in favour of socialist policies.

Another great post jmverville! Can't wait for the next one!
 
Upvote 0

BlackSabb

Senior Member
Aug 31, 2006
2,176
152
✟25,640.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
To love your enemies is quite a difficult thing to do, but there is a point to it: if you have a go at loving them, you can also have a go at understanding them and their reasons for feeling the way they do. And vice versa. :) It's a bit rich to claim you love your enemies but never make the effort to try to understand why they feel the way they do, and to think that perhaps there are genuine and sincere concerns behind their views - sincere even though they may be mistaken.

Peace and love and all that.


Wow!! Peace, love and mung beans sister. Big words cantata. Considering how "loving" you were to me recently in a thread where you poured sarcasm over one of my replies in a thread of yours. You and another poster together, in fact.

I felt the love and understanding sister. I felt it big time. Next time, I suggest try practising what you preach.

Adios.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Verv

Senior Veteran
Apr 17, 2005
7,277
672
Gyeonggido
✟40,959.00
Country
Korea, Republic Of
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
With all due respect, you wouldn't!



You're interchanging liberals with socialists. Not all liberals are in favour of socialist policies.

Another great post jmverville! Can't wait for the next one!

Socialists want to nationalize products, yes,

Liberals want to merely overtax the earners of the country and give it to the looters (as John Galt calls them)...

I see the same goals that these socialists and liberals have but merely different modus operandi.
 
Upvote 0

cantata

Queer non-theist, with added jam.
Feb 20, 2007
6,215
683
38
Oxford, UK
✟32,193.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Just as a note -- the love your enemies idea is such a profound idea and one that is probably hardest for the average person to pick up on or to embrace in any manner whatsoever.

It is a very profound Christian doctrine.

It also makes sense intellectualy -- we note that very rarely does the opposition ever hope for anything evil to befall ourselves or desire an evil outcome but rather we merely disagree on the means and the end goals.

We do have room to love one another.

Well-said. :)

Wow!! Peace, love and mung beans sister. Big words cantata. Considering how "loving" you were to me recently in a thread where you poured sarcasm over one of my replies in a thread of yours. You and another poster together, in fact.

I felt the love and understanding sister. I felt it big time. Next time, I suggest try practising what you preach.

Adios.

Hey, I never claimed to be perfect, BlackSabb - and I might add that empathising with one's opponents doesn't mean either agreeing with them or conceding to fallacious reasoning. You can argue vehemently with someone while acknowledging, at least to yourself, that they are probably not malicious. If I failed to make the latter clear to you in recent discussions, I apologise.

And of course, your post here is not sarcastic in the slightest...

(Citation needed, by the way. Links, please?)
 
Upvote 0

cantata

Queer non-theist, with added jam.
Feb 20, 2007
6,215
683
38
Oxford, UK
✟32,193.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
I don't think Obama will fight for gays in his first term unless he wants to be a one term President.

Are you trying to be funny, or did you just wander into the wrong thread?
 
Upvote 0

huldah153

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2007
501
13
✟742.00
Faith
We are taught to love our enemies, NOT Christ's enemies.

It should not be forgotten that the One who said "love your enemies" also said "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Neither should it be forgotten that the One who said, turn the other cheek, made a whip and soundly thrashed the money changers, turning over their tables and driving them out of the temple.

Jesus was not the - lay down in the gutter and let everyone walk over you - person that liberals would have us believe.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Verv
Upvote 0

cantata

Queer non-theist, with added jam.
Feb 20, 2007
6,215
683
38
Oxford, UK
✟32,193.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
We are taught to love our enemies, NOT Christ's enemies.

It should not be forgotten that the One who said "love your enemies" also said "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Neither should it be forgotten that the One who said, turn the other cheek, made a whip and soundly thrashed the money changers, turning over their tables and driving them out of the temple.

Jesus was not the - lay down in the gutter and let everyone walk over you - person that liberals would have us believe.

Does this post have a point in the context of this thread?
 
Upvote 0

stan1980

Veteran
Jan 7, 2008
3,238
261
✟27,040.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Socialists want to nationalize products, yes,

Liberals want to merely overtax the earners of the country and give it to the looters (as John Galt calls them)...

I see the same goals that these socialists and liberals have but merely different modus operandi.

You're babbling on like a buffoon again on economic issues. If you want argue about the merits of socialism and capitalism then by all means do it. But can I just point out that none of this has anything to do with who is more prone to confirmation bias nor does this really relate to cantata's OP. So maybe it's for another thread.
 
Upvote 0

cantata

Queer non-theist, with added jam.
Feb 20, 2007
6,215
683
38
Oxford, UK
✟32,193.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
To be honest, I didn't read the thread.

I just hate when liberals/atheists take Christ's words out of context.

Jesus isn't the only (or even the first) person in the whole of history who thought it might be a good idea to love one's enemies.

Therefore I'm afraid he doesn't have a monopoly on how the phrase is to be interpreted, and since I didn't mention him in my OP, you may assume that I wasn't particularly referring to his views about enemy-lovin'.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.