Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Florida Christians protest atheist billboard

Page 12 of 13 [ 206 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Aug 2009, 4:42 pm

gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
That sounds suspiciously like, I don't know, bias.

The same exact kind of bias that you show when you assume your opinions are correct.

If it really is so objectionable to assume that you are correct, then please explain to me how anyone can reasonably hold any opinion whatsoever.


Hang on a minute here...this has gone from "assuming someone is correct because they are a Christian" to "assuming you yourself are correct". Those are two completely different things.


It has no difference between these two. Really, assuming oneself to be correct is the default state of all things. To tack on a reason, such as "because I am a Christian" or "because I am an Atheist" or "because of whatever" is just icing on the cake.



gina-ghettoprincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,669
Location: The Town That Time Forgot (UK)

19 Aug 2009, 4:42 pm

Ancalagon wrote:
gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
So do most Christians believe that they are superior to everyone else and that anyone who states otherwise should be censored? I don't think so.

No.

I'm not sure how you got this out of what I said.


You asserted that most Christians share a certain set of beliefs, so I pointed to the beliefs of the Christians in the article (beliefs which are not shared by the majority of Christians).


_________________
'El reloj, no avanza
y yo quiero ir a verte,
La clase, no acaba
y es como un semestre"


Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

19 Aug 2009, 4:44 pm

Ancalagon wrote:
Quote:
You said that you would agree with X over Y in a situation Z, where 'Z' is a situation where you don't know any specifics. That's the very definition of biased.

Not quite. I said that it would be reasonable to assume that I would agree with X over Y, if X tends to agree with me and Y doesn't, without further information. Obviously, the presence of further information could change things.

That isn't the definition of bias, it's the definition of being on whatever side that you happen to be on.


Let's see the definition of bias again:

Quote:
a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.


I do assume that the issues you 'side' with Christians (the Christian religion etc.) you already have a stable and well-thought-through position on, yes?

Let's apply this reasoning somewhere else, assuming you don't know what 'Scyther' is:

Christian: Scyther is an awesome Pokémon.
Atheist: Scyther is an awful Pokémon.


_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Aug 2009, 4:51 pm

A disputation over poking men? Whatever, I send the Vasari capital ship fleet to bombard your planet.



gina-ghettoprincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,669
Location: The Town That Time Forgot (UK)

19 Aug 2009, 4:51 pm

Ancalagon wrote:
gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
Hang on a minute here...this has gone from "assuming someone is correct because they are a Christian" to "assuming you yourself are correct". Those are two completely different things.

I am not advocating agreeing with someone because of a label that they wear. I'm saying that it is reasonable, if you know that someone thinks very much like you do, to assume that you would agree with them over someone who thinks quite differently from either of you.

Assuming that someone who agrees with you is correct is not much different from assuming that you yourself are correct.


There are some beliefs that Christians would agree with each other on (eg. belief in God) because that is something at the core of the Christian faith. But there are other beliefs that have nothing to do with what religion you are, which Christians (and people of other faiths) may or may not agree with.

In this case, a Christian group is, for lack of a better word, oppressing people who don't believe what they believe. But this isn't something that only Christians do. Neither is it something that all, or even a lot of, Christians do. There are people of other religions who oppress Christians (and other groups). There are Christians who would not stand for the sort of nonsense mentioned in the article.

The belief in question here is the belief that this oppression is okay, which as I have stated, is not a Christian belief. It is merely a belief held by a group of people who happen to be Christian.


_________________
'El reloj, no avanza
y yo quiero ir a verte,
La clase, no acaba
y es como un semestre"


gina-ghettoprincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,669
Location: The Town That Time Forgot (UK)

19 Aug 2009, 5:01 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
That sounds suspiciously like, I don't know, bias.

The same exact kind of bias that you show when you assume your opinions are correct.

If it really is so objectionable to assume that you are correct, then please explain to me how anyone can reasonably hold any opinion whatsoever.


Hang on a minute here...this has gone from "assuming someone is correct because they are a Christian" to "assuming you yourself are correct". Those are two completely different things.


It has no difference between these two. Really, assuming oneself to be correct is the default state of all things. To tack on a reason, such as "because I am a Christian" or "because I am an Atheist" or "because of whatever" is just icing on the cake.


I agree with what you are saying here, but you appear to have missed what I was saying. To say "I agree with x because I am a Christian" when "x" equals your opinion, is different from when "x" is someone else's opinion which you do not have details of, except that you know that person is a Christian. The first example is merely a religious justification of your personal beliefs, which is fair game. But the second example is a biased judgment of someone else (here's the important part) based on a label which covers a very broad range of beliefs.


_________________
'El reloj, no avanza
y yo quiero ir a verte,
La clase, no acaba
y es como un semestre"


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Aug 2009, 5:10 pm

gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
That sounds suspiciously like, I don't know, bias.

The same exact kind of bias that you show when you assume your opinions are correct.

If it really is so objectionable to assume that you are correct, then please explain to me how anyone can reasonably hold any opinion whatsoever.


Hang on a minute here...this has gone from "assuming someone is correct because they are a Christian" to "assuming you yourself are correct". Those are two completely different things.


It has no difference between these two. Really, assuming oneself to be correct is the default state of all things. To tack on a reason, such as "because I am a Christian" or "because I am an Atheist" or "because of whatever" is just icing on the cake.


I agree with what you are saying here, but you appear to have missed what I was saying. To say "I agree with x because I am a Christian" when "x" equals your opinion, is different from when "x" is someone else's opinion which you do not have details of, except that you know that person is a Christian. The first example is merely a religious justification of your personal beliefs, which is fair game. But the second example is a biased judgment of someone else (here's the important part) based on a label which covers a very broad range of beliefs.


Would it be wrong for me to generally side with agnostics because they generally try to be objective and don't militantly shove their beliefs down others' throats? I am a Christian, but people like Quatermass and GreenBlue present a respectable front to the stance of agnosticism. How would this be different from generally siding with another group because of the front a few of its members present? Or perhaps there are other reasons than what I have for respecting the agnostics I've met, but either way, why is there a debate going on about one person deciding to defend another group than their own by their own choice?



Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

19 Aug 2009, 5:58 pm

Henriksson wrote:
a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.

The 'prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question' portion does not apply. I am not advocating for the prevention of unprejudiced consideration.

Quote:
Let's apply this reasoning somewhere else, assuming you don't know what 'Scyther' is:

Christian: Scyther is an awesome Pokémon.
Atheist: Scyther is an awful Pokémon.

Strangely enough, the etymology of awesome and awful is virtually identical. Thus, it appears that the Christian and the Atheist are agreed that Scyther is the kind of Pokemon that inspires a dreadful fear tinged with respect.

Pokemon don't generally inspire me with dread, so I'm going to guess they're both wrong. :P


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


gina-ghettoprincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,669
Location: The Town That Time Forgot (UK)

19 Aug 2009, 6:06 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
That sounds suspiciously like, I don't know, bias.

The same exact kind of bias that you show when you assume your opinions are correct.

If it really is so objectionable to assume that you are correct, then please explain to me how anyone can reasonably hold any opinion whatsoever.


Hang on a minute here...this has gone from "assuming someone is correct because they are a Christian" to "assuming you yourself are correct". Those are two completely different things.


It has no difference between these two. Really, assuming oneself to be correct is the default state of all things. To tack on a reason, such as "because I am a Christian" or "because I am an Atheist" or "because of whatever" is just icing on the cake.


I agree with what you are saying here, but you appear to have missed what I was saying. To say "I agree with x because I am a Christian" when "x" equals your opinion, is different from when "x" is someone else's opinion which you do not have details of, except that you know that person is a Christian. The first example is merely a religious justification of your personal beliefs, which is fair game. But the second example is a biased judgment of someone else (here's the important part) based on a label which covers a very broad range of beliefs.


Would it be wrong for me to generally side with agnostics because they generally try to be objective and don't militantly shove their beliefs down others' throats? I am a Christian, but people like Quatermass and GreenBlue present a respectable front to the stance of agnosticism. How would this be different from generally siding with another group because of the front a few of its members present? Or perhaps there are other reasons than what I have for respecting the agnostics I've met, but either way, why is there a debate going on about one person deciding to defend another group than their own by their own choice?


There is nothing wrong with preferring to side with someone who presents a calm and objective view of an issue. That is completely different from simply siding with someone because they are the same religion as you.


_________________
'El reloj, no avanza
y yo quiero ir a verte,
La clase, no acaba
y es como un semestre"


Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

19 Aug 2009, 6:18 pm

gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
There is nothing wrong with preferring to side with someone who presents a calm and objective view of an issue. That is completely different from simply siding with someone because they are the same religion as you.

That's more or less what I've been saying. (With more emphasis on the first sentence, and without mandating calmness and objectivity without exception.)


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


gina-ghettoprincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,669
Location: The Town That Time Forgot (UK)

19 Aug 2009, 6:28 pm

Ancalagon wrote:
gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
There is nothing wrong with preferring to side with someone who presents a calm and objective view of an issue. That is completely different from simply siding with someone because they are the same religion as you.

That's more or less what I've been saying. (With more emphasis on the first sentence, and without mandating calmness and objectivity without exception.)


That doesn't seem to make much sense. My first sentence, if it weren't "mandating calmness and objectivity without exception", essentially fails to make sense as a statement. :?

And the people in the article aren't being very calm OR objective. You stated that you would be more likely to side with them because they are Christians, not because of how their argument is presented.


_________________
'El reloj, no avanza
y yo quiero ir a verte,
La clase, no acaba
y es como un semestre"


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Aug 2009, 7:20 pm

gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
That sounds suspiciously like, I don't know, bias.

The same exact kind of bias that you show when you assume your opinions are correct.

If it really is so objectionable to assume that you are correct, then please explain to me how anyone can reasonably hold any opinion whatsoever.


Hang on a minute here...this has gone from "assuming someone is correct because they are a Christian" to "assuming you yourself are correct". Those are two completely different things.


It has no difference between these two. Really, assuming oneself to be correct is the default state of all things. To tack on a reason, such as "because I am a Christian" or "because I am an Atheist" or "because of whatever" is just icing on the cake.


I agree with what you are saying here, but you appear to have missed what I was saying. To say "I agree with x because I am a Christian" when "x" equals your opinion, is different from when "x" is someone else's opinion which you do not have details of, except that you know that person is a Christian. The first example is merely a religious justification of your personal beliefs, which is fair game. But the second example is a biased judgment of someone else (here's the important part) based on a label which covers a very broad range of beliefs.


Would it be wrong for me to generally side with agnostics because they generally try to be objective and don't militantly shove their beliefs down others' throats? I am a Christian, but people like Quatermass and GreenBlue present a respectable front to the stance of agnosticism. How would this be different from generally siding with another group because of the front a few of its members present? Or perhaps there are other reasons than what I have for respecting the agnostics I've met, but either way, why is there a debate going on about one person deciding to defend another group than their own by their own choice?


There is nothing wrong with preferring to side with someone who presents a calm and objective view of an issue. That is completely different from simply siding with someone because they are the same religion as you.


I think there is a contradiction here somewhere. Perhaps here:


gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
There is nothing wrong with preferring to side with someone who presents a calm and objective view of an issue. That is completely different from simply siding with someone because they are the same religion as you.


gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
To say "I agree with x because I am a Christian" when "x" equals your opinion, is different from when "x" is someone else's opinion which you do not have details of, except that you know that person is a Christian. The first example is merely a religious justification of your personal beliefs, which is fair game. But the second example is a biased judgment of someone else (here's the important part) based on a label which covers a very broad range of beliefs.



gina-ghettoprincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,669
Location: The Town That Time Forgot (UK)

19 Aug 2009, 7:23 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
That sounds suspiciously like, I don't know, bias.

The same exact kind of bias that you show when you assume your opinions are correct.

If it really is so objectionable to assume that you are correct, then please explain to me how anyone can reasonably hold any opinion whatsoever.


Hang on a minute here...this has gone from "assuming someone is correct because they are a Christian" to "assuming you yourself are correct". Those are two completely different things.


It has no difference between these two. Really, assuming oneself to be correct is the default state of all things. To tack on a reason, such as "because I am a Christian" or "because I am an Atheist" or "because of whatever" is just icing on the cake.


I agree with what you are saying here, but you appear to have missed what I was saying. To say "I agree with x because I am a Christian" when "x" equals your opinion, is different from when "x" is someone else's opinion which you do not have details of, except that you know that person is a Christian. The first example is merely a religious justification of your personal beliefs, which is fair game. But the second example is a biased judgment of someone else (here's the important part) based on a label which covers a very broad range of beliefs.


Would it be wrong for me to generally side with agnostics because they generally try to be objective and don't militantly shove their beliefs down others' throats? I am a Christian, but people like Quatermass and GreenBlue present a respectable front to the stance of agnosticism. How would this be different from generally siding with another group because of the front a few of its members present? Or perhaps there are other reasons than what I have for respecting the agnostics I've met, but either way, why is there a debate going on about one person deciding to defend another group than their own by their own choice?


There is nothing wrong with preferring to side with someone who presents a calm and objective view of an issue. That is completely different from simply siding with someone because they are the same religion as you.


I think there is a contradiction here somewhere. Perhaps here:


gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
There is nothing wrong with preferring to side with someone who presents a calm and objective view of an issue. That is completely different from simply siding with someone because they are the same religion as you.


gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
To say "I agree with x because I am a Christian" when "x" equals your opinion, is different from when "x" is someone else's opinion which you do not have details of, except that you know that person is a Christian. The first example is merely a religious justification of your personal beliefs, which is fair game. But the second example is a biased judgment of someone else (here's the important part) based on a label which covers a very broad range of beliefs.


How is that a contradiction?


_________________
'El reloj, no avanza
y yo quiero ir a verte,
La clase, no acaba
y es como un semestre"


Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

19 Aug 2009, 7:46 pm

gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
There is nothing wrong with preferring to side with someone who presents a calm and objective view of an issue. That is completely different from simply siding with someone because they are the same religion as you.

That's more or less what I've been saying. (With more emphasis on the first sentence, and without mandating calmness and objectivity without exception.)


That doesn't seem to make much sense. My first sentence, if it weren't "mandating calmness and objectivity without exception", essentially fails to make sense as a statement. :?

I don't see what calmness or objectivity have to do with it at all.

We seem to be talking past each other.

Quote:
And the people in the article aren't being very calm OR objective. You stated that you would be more likely to side with them because they are Christians, not because of how their argument is presented.

I don't think I can base a solid opinion on that article, since it has its own bias and certainly isn't trying to present those who object in the most favorable light. My knee-jerk reaction, though, would be to disagree with them, because however irritating the poster might be for them, in the end it comes down to free speech. (And, of course, they can object, but then people can object to their objection...)

I am not talking about siding with someone despite wrong arguments, I'm talking about siding with someone because they are on your side.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


gina-ghettoprincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,669
Location: The Town That Time Forgot (UK)

19 Aug 2009, 7:56 pm

Ancalagon wrote:
gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
There is nothing wrong with preferring to side with someone who presents a calm and objective view of an issue. That is completely different from simply siding with someone because they are the same religion as you.

That's more or less what I've been saying. (With more emphasis on the first sentence, and without mandating calmness and objectivity without exception.)


That doesn't seem to make much sense. My first sentence, if it weren't "mandating calmness and objectivity without exception", essentially fails to make sense as a statement. :?

I don't see what calmness or objectivity have to do with it at all.

We seem to be talking past each other.


I was replying to the person who said they would tend to agree with agnostics because they aren't militant, etc.

Quote:
Quote:
And the people in the article aren't being very calm OR objective. You stated that you would be more likely to side with them because they are Christians, not because of how their argument is presented.

I don't think I can base a solid opinion on that article, since it has its own bias and certainly isn't trying to present those who object in the most favorable light. My knee-jerk reaction, though, would be to disagree with them, because however irritating the poster might be for them, in the end it comes down to free speech. (And, of course, they can object, but then people can object to their objection...)
I am not talking about siding with someone despite wrong arguments, I'm talking about siding with someone because they are on your side.


Now we appear to be in agreement on the main issue. However, your last sentence confuses me - you say you would side with the people who are on your side. Do you mean the people who agree with what you say in the bold text, or the people who are Christians?


_________________
'El reloj, no avanza
y yo quiero ir a verte,
La clase, no acaba
y es como un semestre"


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Aug 2009, 7:58 pm

gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:

I think there is a contradiction here somewhere. Perhaps here:


gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
There is nothing wrong with preferring to side with someone who presents a calm and objective view of an issue. That is completely different from simply siding with someone because they are the same religion as you.


gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
To say "I agree with x because I am a Christian" when "x" equals your opinion, is different from when "x" is someone else's opinion which you do not have details of, except that you know that person is a Christian. The first example is merely a religious justification of your personal beliefs, which is fair game. But the second example is a biased judgment of someone else (here's the important part) based on a label which covers a very broad range of beliefs.


How is that a contradiction?


Well, in one you're saying that it's acceptable to side with someone who has your same views and in the other you say it is unacceptable.