Word VS Print

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Scissorhands, Aug 4, 2009.

  1. Scissorhands

    Scissorhands Registered Member

    So last night I found myself debating with my girlfriend. It was something like this:
    (I am atheist, she is more or less agnostic.)

    Her: We should create our own religion.
    Me: Why?
    Her: I don't know. Buddah did it. He was just sitting under a tree and an apple fell on his head and he was like "Oh! I'm going to create a religion."

    Now at this point I was very annoyed because I hate talking to people about things or which they have no insight. I don't consider her a very intelligent person so I find myself very commonly annoyed lately.

    Me: Buddhism is not a religion. It's a way of life, for one thing.
    Her: It is too a religion! Just like Christianity.

    *Continuous debating.*

    Point here being that I can say "Hey, Buddhism is a way of life, not a religion." and anyone I know that didn't agree would fight me to the death about it. But if I pull up a web page or the fact stated in a book, they would put down their guns and accept it. What does something in print have on my word? Because someone posted a blog or wrote an article makes them so much more creditable than me?
     

  2. Rebeccaaa

    Rebeccaaa yellow 4!

    I first thought "well, obviously because it's on the internet or written down, someone must have..." and then I stopped and realised how lame it sounded :lol: It's a pretty good point you've got there.

    I suppose some people are quick to challenge your word because we can all be wrong sometimes, but the internet is just another way of backing yourself up, like reading it from a book. And if you can find a good number of sources that suggest the same thing well, all the better.

    I do see what you mean though.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2009
  3. ysabel

    ysabel /ˈɪzəˌbɛl/ pink 5

    Showing a webpage is just one of the ways to say you're not just inventing it or that other people/sources think as you do.

    It doesn't automatically make it more credible (although some are quicker to believe it) unless you're quoting what is generally considered to be an "expert" or knowledgeable in the field or a source that has been verified through the times to be reliable (can be online, books, or people).

    For example, if you think wiki is a good source or religionfacts.com, then you'd see that it supports what your girlfriend say about Buddhism being a religion.
     
  4. martyclark

    martyclark Registered Member

    human error is always subconciously taken into account in a debate. Each side has to assume the other may have his or her facts mixed around. Its not wrong of her to think you were wrong.

    also, people hate being wrong... and they always think their right until theres hard proof, like words on a legitimate website or in a book.
     
  5. Boredie

    Boredie In need of Entertainment

    Look at it another way, there was a time when most people thought the bible to be true. And then came along someone who said otherwise. Why didn't he take in what it said in the bible, after all most of the monotheist religious people belived in it.
    Yet these days there are many who don't believe in the bible based on the words of the first people who started to doubt what it says there (yes I know it's in print now).
    I hope I haven't confused you.

    Anyway, my point being there is no balance between word and print. One isn't better than the other, it's just a matter of opinion in the end.
     
  6. PretzelCorps

    PretzelCorps Registered Member

    Yeah... No they won't; not if they're worth their salt.

    Something in a book may carry more weight than your opinion, but only because it's been considered for a longer period of time, and seen its way past several sets of eyes before finally hitting the public. Books have been held as reputable sources of information for a couple centuries now; websites and blogs feed off of that reputation to garner (oftentimes false) credibility.


    I think the only dependable thing available to critique is the reputation of the person doing the writing/speaking, and the logic behind their argument.

    What a horrible thing to say...
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2009

Share This Page