Rant VII: Now With 25% Less Drama
- Thread starter North_Ranger
- Start date
- Status
Keeping your mouth shut =/= deception.
Just keep telling that to yourself, chief.
M
makare
This is correct.
Okay, if it is deception, then what aren't you telling us? Spill every damn thing about your entire life.
There's a lot I'm not telling you. GUESS I'M A DECEIVER.
figmentPez
Staff member
I really have to take issue at this. It's never a good idea to start intellectual discourse* with deception. In the course of arguing views on religion, it's not possible to state one's case without dealing with a person's presuppositions coming into that argument. An atheist cannot argue honestly if they are pretending to be a Christian, or are trying to avoid saying what they do believe.
*if any reader of this post had the knee-jerk reaction to disagree with this being an intellectual discussion simply because it's about religion, then I kindly ask you to consider the irony of that thought.
M
makare
my point is what does having a problem with how they feel towards homosexuals have to do with being atheist? nothing.
figmentPez
Staff member
How they feel about and treat homosexuals has to do with their religious beliefs. How someone discusses those religious beliefs is dependent on their preconceptions about those religious beliefs. Someone who denies that Jesus Christ is God is going to have a radically different opinion on the authenticity of the Bible as God's word than someone who is a Christian. How Hylian's parents deal with homosexuality may not hinge on his atheism, but how he discusses the matter with them most certainly does involve his atheism.
Moreover, that's why keeping silent about his atheism could be a form of deception. If the subject really never came up, then it's possible it didn't matter. However that's a pretty distant family if the entire scope of the Christian religion and Hylian's position on it never came up and never required him to imply that he still believes. I'll admit it's possible he never had to decieve anyone to remain silent, but it strikes me as a very unlikely scenario.
EDIT: fixed a couple of errors where I said the wrong poster.
M
makare
I am not an atheist and I am able to have a conversations with people about religious based negativity towards homosexuality etc.
And it is not Quotemander.
And it is not Quotemander.
figmentPez
Staff member
That's wonderful. Can you discuss the Christian view on homosexuality with someone who thinks you're a Christian, while in reality being an atheist, without any deception? I do not believe that would be possible.
Not even sure I should try getting into this; I have a feeling I'm gonna look at it tomorrow and go "That right there is why you didn't accomplish what you wanted to yesterday evening." Firstly, steinman, that's a more realistic stance and I can agree with it that way.
Anyway, what I get out of Figment's thing:
- Anyone not a Christian is denying the truth, not having a difference of belief, opinion, morals, etc. Hahaha.
- Hylian's opinions about homosexuality are tied in with his atheism. Why does this have to be the case? I know homosexuals of different faiths and of having none. I know people who accept homosexuality as just fine of different faiths and having none. I've even known in the past people who denied the righteousness of homosexuality and it had nothing to do with their Christianity, because they weren't even Christians. Amazingly, people can have different opinions, for different reasons than other people have those different opinions. Hylian's opinion on homosexuality could be tied in with his atheism. It could also be tied in with his humanity. Or maybe he doesn't care, but he doesn't enjoy hearing people being bad-mouthed for nothing. I'm the same way with some of my relatives being asses about Jewish people and Hispanics.
- A family is distant if they don't ask each other's opinions on Christianity. I consider myself pretty close to my family, but hell, guess I was wrong. We really don't love each other because we're not worried about who thinks what about Jesus.
Actually, my mom and her siblings did have those discussions, and with her parents, but only because one of her sisters insisted on discussing it constantly. She passed away a few months ago. They don't seem to discuss it much anymore. Guess they're all distant now even though they talk a lot and meet up. Ah well. Foolish of us.
When I was an atheist, I didn't say anything except "I don't want to go to church anymore." That didn't work, but I was 14, and as Shego said, it can cause problems. We only stopped going because my brother passed away.
I'm seeing a trend in my family I didn't notice before. Huh.
Anyway, telling my mom I was a pagan was fun, because she had no idea what that meant at all. Just more weirdness from her son, which she's okay with. That's really all it should be--whatever your kid is, you accept them as your kid. Gay, straight, Christian, atheist, weirdo, alien. They're still your child. Guess I'm just lucky. If only my family wasn't so distant, dammit.
Anyway, what I get out of Figment's thing:
- Anyone not a Christian is denying the truth, not having a difference of belief, opinion, morals, etc. Hahaha.
- Hylian's opinions about homosexuality are tied in with his atheism. Why does this have to be the case? I know homosexuals of different faiths and of having none. I know people who accept homosexuality as just fine of different faiths and having none. I've even known in the past people who denied the righteousness of homosexuality and it had nothing to do with their Christianity, because they weren't even Christians. Amazingly, people can have different opinions, for different reasons than other people have those different opinions. Hylian's opinion on homosexuality could be tied in with his atheism. It could also be tied in with his humanity. Or maybe he doesn't care, but he doesn't enjoy hearing people being bad-mouthed for nothing. I'm the same way with some of my relatives being asses about Jewish people and Hispanics.
- A family is distant if they don't ask each other's opinions on Christianity. I consider myself pretty close to my family, but hell, guess I was wrong. We really don't love each other because we're not worried about who thinks what about Jesus.
Actually, my mom and her siblings did have those discussions, and with her parents, but only because one of her sisters insisted on discussing it constantly. She passed away a few months ago. They don't seem to discuss it much anymore. Guess they're all distant now even though they talk a lot and meet up. Ah well. Foolish of us.
When I was an atheist, I didn't say anything except "I don't want to go to church anymore." That didn't work, but I was 14, and as Shego said, it can cause problems. We only stopped going because my brother passed away.
I'm seeing a trend in my family I didn't notice before. Huh.
Anyway, telling my mom I was a pagan was fun, because she had no idea what that meant at all. Just more weirdness from her son, which she's okay with. That's really all it should be--whatever your kid is, you accept them as your kid. Gay, straight, Christian, atheist, weirdo, alien. They're still your child. Guess I'm just lucky. If only my family wasn't so distant, dammit.
M
makare
hehe i was just recounting some of my pagan "coming out" in irc. My mom tried to understand but she failed. She failed a lot. I just kind of shrug and keep my spiritual self to myself really. But I am pretty accepting of a wide variety of spiritualities, I'll go to a lot of churches. Not ALL churches any that are hate mongering chick track handing out assholes can kiss my ass.
My mom actually introduced me to a friend of hers who is Wiccan. It was nice of her. She really did her best even though I know it bothered her. She is not much of a church goer but her lutheran beliefs are a big part of who she is. Over the years we have talked and she has changed and moved more to my pan-spiritualism type view on life. She still says stupid shit sometimes but I let it slide.
My mom actually introduced me to a friend of hers who is Wiccan. It was nice of her. She really did her best even though I know it bothered her. She is not much of a church goer but her lutheran beliefs are a big part of who she is. Over the years we have talked and she has changed and moved more to my pan-spiritualism type view on life. She still says stupid shit sometimes but I let it slide.
figmentPez
Staff member
You're just refusing rational thought on this matter, aren't you? I have said nothing of the sort. I merely stated that someone discussing religion, especially the Christian faith, cannot participate fully and honestly in that discussion if they do not state their own stance on the issue. I've seen it time and time again, from those who believe being dishonest because they're seeking to hide their faith, and from those who don't believe being dishonest because they're trying to hide their rejection of faith. It is simply not possible to have a full and reasoned discourse of religion while hiding one's own position on the matter.
The rest of your post is just a blatant personal attack, which I won't respond to.
I'm quite certain there are a multitude of philosophors who are very capable of conversing on that subject with others in a full and reasoned manner without ever divulging their personal beliefs.
In fact, they might insist that their discussion have nothing to do with personal beliefs, and that anyone coming into such a discussion and insisting on explaining their personal beliefs (as you say is necessary) is only going to impede logical, rational discussion of the topic.
BTW, I'm mormon, and I guess I gotta get that out there because otherwise I'm not having a full and reasoned discussion about religion with you if you don't understand my personal belief system.
Quite frankly, your insistence that this is necessary indicates that you simply want to be able to use your own preconceived notions, assumptions, and stereotypes in the discussion, rather than actually discussing the topic fully and completely. Maybe you feel it's a shortcut and time-saver, but I simply don't see how it's relevant, nevermind necessary.
This is a personal attack.
Added at: 21:49
That's why I made sure to mention I'm pagan. Usually I get into these discussions and people on other forums have been confused as to where I stand because I'll argue with Christians and atheists alike. Didn't feel I needed to say "I'M A ____", but let my opinions and beliefs stand for who I am.
I'm learning so much from Figment today.
figmentPez
Staff member
I have yet to meet a single one. I suppose they may exist somewhere that they don't get into arguments on the internet, or in my small sphere of experience, but I have never seen them.
I have met many who have insisted that their personal beliefs have no bearing on a discussion. Every single time they've proven themselves wrong, often quote self-destructively. The idea that one can have reached conclusions, keep those conclusions hidden, and still engage in honest discourse about the possibilty of other conclusions is absurd. Those who have done the best job of understanding the viewpoints of others, as judged by those others holding the viewpoints, have always been those who are upfront and honest about what they presently believe on a matter.
I never said I had to understand your belief system, I merely said that you would have to be honest about what you do believe when arguing about religion. I do not have to know everything that you believe, as long as I know that you will not hide what you believe, or pretend to believe something you do not (without acknowledgement; "for the sake of this argument" can work, "I won't tell you because it's irrelevant" is complete bullshit.)
I've been proven wrong about my assumptions on other beliefs many times. I actually look foward to it. The times I've learned the least have been trying to argue with someone who won't tell me at all what they believe. Without knowing what conclusions they've already reached, I can never understand why they don't accept my reasoning that led me to believe what I do.
No one in my family really discusses religion any more (outside of my nanny). My parents don't know I'm pagan. They don't know I consider myself bi-sexual. They just assume I'm whatever they are. We can still have discussions. We can still argue about 'issues'.
If they asked me I'd tell them the truth. It would probably change things a little.
However, I don't think I am being deceptive. I actually don't even know what my Dads stance IS on God since Mom died.
I just don't see how it would be relevant.
If they asked me I'd tell them the truth. It would probably change things a little.
However, I don't think I am being deceptive. I actually don't even know what my Dads stance IS on God since Mom died.
I just don't see how it would be relevant.
I suspect that you and I are probably talking at cross purposes, and perhaps when you say they have to reveal their beliefs, you are actually discussing matters of faith - which are not always rooted in logically explainable root assumptions.
Faith and religion are related, in that most religions require faith (probably not all), but one can certainly discuss religion without discussing faith in any particular belief.
Faith and religion are related, in that most religions require faith (probably not all), but one can certainly discuss religion without discussing faith in any particular belief.
figmentPez
Staff member
Well, it is clear that we define faith differently, but aside from that the beliefs I'm concerned with are of a far broader spectrum than the small sub-section you think I'm talking about. I think that when people are discussing truth, especially religious truth, they need to be upfront about their own stance on what they're discussing. That means the conclusion they've reached, as well as whatever has led them to that conclusion, be it "gut feeling", study of the great written works of philosophy, mathematical analysis, their mother told them so and so it is, or they read it in dregs of their breakfast cereal. Whatever conclusion they have already reached cannot be dismissed as irrelevant in the discussion of that issue. It's absurd to believe that anyone can fully divorce themselves from what they already believe to be true. Even if they expect to possibly be persuaded otherwise, they still reached that conclusion once and that stance has shaped who they are now. Expecting to understand a person and their reasoning without knowing where that reasoning has already brought them is an exercise in frustration, if not outright fultility.
Interesting. I suppose I'll just have to disagree with you. Keep in mind that perhaps the reason why you can't fathom anyone who could discuss things from a point of view different than their own is simply because you are unable to do so yourself - not necessarily because it's impossible to do so.
Similar to the idea that if one student fails, it's likely the student's fault, while if most students fail it's likely the teacher's fault, it may well be that you are the common element in all these exchanges you've had where you and your discussion partner could never divorce your personal beliefs from your discussion about beliefs.
Similar to the idea that if one student fails, it's likely the student's fault, while if most students fail it's likely the teacher's fault, it may well be that you are the common element in all these exchanges you've had where you and your discussion partner could never divorce your personal beliefs from your discussion about beliefs.
figmentPez
Staff member
I believe the weight of proof is on the less probable occurrance. Should I assume that someone can fully divorce their current argument from their already held beliefs, when I have never seen it done, or should I believe the far more logical conclusion that people are shaped by their experiences and beliefs and that we should not expect people to be other than they are. Far easier for people to be honest about what their full reasoning is, and let it be clearly shown if they have, in fact, been able to separate their current discussion of a subject from their previous reasoning on that same subject.
The flaw in your reasoning is that I've not been involved in all of these discussions. I cannot be the common denominator if I were merely an observer.
M
makare
"I'm not wrong because everyone else fails at using logic."
got it.
got it.
figmentPez
Staff member
Try it this way ""I might be wrong because everyone, and I mean everyone, fails at using logic." From time to time, that's true. However, that's why it's important for people to acknowledge if they already have a stance on an issue, and that existing stance will influence future thinking on the subject. We all think we've been logical in some form or fashion, every one of us. It's the way human beings think. If we've come to some conclusion, we either come to it by logic or make up logic after the fact. Trying to deny that does no good. Coming up with alternate logic does no good of we don't directly confront what we've already built up. It's simply not possible to honestly follow new logic without confronting the old. I fail at logic, you fail at logic, but as long as those failures go unchallenged, they sit there and influence the way we think about that subject, and similar subjects.
I absolutely love the implied syllogism:
-I am Human
-Humans inevitably fail at Logic
∴ I fail at Logic
--Patrick
figmentPez
Staff member
I have failed at logic at many points in the past. I don't deny it. I don't think I've failed at logic in this particular case, but I'm certainly willing to discuss what leads me to that conclusion, and indeed that's what I have been doing.
A piece of bread is better than nothing.
Nothing is greater than God.
∴ A piece of bread is better than God
Nothing is greater than God.
∴ A piece of bread is better than God
fade
Staff member
I had most of what steiny wrote typed in here last night, but I abandoned it as likely to cause an endless argument. The biggest issue with revealing one's own stance is that while that reveals potential (and let me stress potential) bias in your own argument, it also invites your "opponent" to assume bias in your arguments. Does it matter if one's argument is biased by his/her own stance? If your argument is well-supported, it should stand regardless. If it's not, well you're in a position anyway, again regardless of your presuppositions. Bias will push you to one favored side in a discussion, but it can't manufacture support. At least not good support
Today's rant:
I'm probably making a bad decision to cancel today's work schedule and work on a project which is behind in its payments. I want to get it DONE and get them off my back.
Squeaky wheel gets the grease after all, to the detriment of my on-time customers.
Sigh.
Plus this (hopefully) last bug I'm attacking is particularly annoying.
I'm probably making a bad decision to cancel today's work schedule and work on a project which is behind in its payments. I want to get it DONE and get them off my back.
Squeaky wheel gets the grease after all, to the detriment of my on-time customers.
Sigh.
Plus this (hopefully) last bug I'm attacking is particularly annoying.
There are plenty aspects of my life that I keep hidden from my parents/friends/whoever I decide doesn't need to know it. But my telling my parents I was an atheist was the only way I could get it so that I did not have to attend church (at least without moving away). My dad is a pastor and he expects us kids to go to his church and so he knows every time I didn't show and if I stopped coming it would have come out anyways. So I figured being upfront and honest about it would be better than just stopping going and than having them call me and chew me out for not going and have it all come out anyways.
My rant can be summarized in the following link: http://support.t-mobile.com/message/96976#96976
TL; DR Version:
-We attempted to cancel our T-Mobile contract because they wouldn't let us upgrade last month, even if we signed a new 2-year contract.
-We were offered a plan with 1000 minutes, unlimited text, and 2 GB high speed data for $80/month (total price for 2 lines).
-After verifying that the plan included everything (since it seemed too good to be true) we accepted.
-T-Mobile dropped unlimited messaging from our accounts (twice) and incurred charges, which were waived, then told us our plan is $140/month.
-We are told there IS no $80 per month plan with what we have, and that the rate is $140/month.
-T-Mobile employs a bunch of fucktards.
TL; DR Version:
-We attempted to cancel our T-Mobile contract because they wouldn't let us upgrade last month, even if we signed a new 2-year contract.
-We were offered a plan with 1000 minutes, unlimited text, and 2 GB high speed data for $80/month (total price for 2 lines).
-After verifying that the plan included everything (since it seemed too good to be true) we accepted.
-T-Mobile dropped unlimited messaging from our accounts (twice) and incurred charges, which were waived, then told us our plan is $140/month.
-We are told there IS no $80 per month plan with what we have, and that the rate is $140/month.
-T-Mobile employs a bunch of fucktards.
That's the thing; we're outside the 30 day period. We started this on December 20th or so; there were no abnormal charges for December, and we've been informed we're outside the 30 day buyer's remorse period.
- Status