I also hope to talk with a scientologist about it, but haven't had the chance yet.
[editline]24th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lankist;36467149]I'm sure you really changed the world that day.[/QUOTE]
Yeah between you and me, the things he said were a little insane, but I had to accept that in order to keep it going.
Labeling is hardly something we should shy from; it's fucking useful in pretty much all aspects of philosophy. I honestly find it difficult to not sound condescending when I'm talking to somebody about how irrational their belief system is.
[QUOTE=AK'z;36467112]I'm over myself.
However I know how atheists like to bully agnostics hence why this whole labelling game should be scrapped.[/QUOTE]
ITT: Wild generalisations based on anecdotes and personal experience.
[QUOTE=AK'z;36467154]Yeah between you and me, the things he said were a little insane, but I had to accept that in order to keep it going.[/QUOTE]
That is called pandering.
You condescended to him in your own head while putting on a shit-eating grin and fed him a line of bull. You lied to him.
I don't consider lying and talking behind one's back to be respectful.
Given the choice between telling someone they're crazy and thinking it behind their back, I take the fucking honest route. Maybe you can sit there and lie to someone's face. I can't. I've got more respect for human beings than that. I don't think they're so weak-minded that they'll break down at the first sign of confrontation.
If i'm engaged in a discussion about a religious person's belief system, I'd just tell them I think you're wrong and here's why. There's nothing disrespectful about rejecting someone's beliefs and having the stones to tell them in argument form. If you bring it up just for the sake of slandering them I guess it's a bit much, but if that's the discussion you're having you shouldn't have to pretend their beliefs are remotely rational if you don't think they are.
You can twist that however you like, I only did that so it would make sense to you. It's not my whole-hearted opinion because then nobody will understand.
I didn't condescend the mormon one bit, neither did I want to argue and convert him out. He was a convert himself, so I thought to let that be. I expressed my beliefs, and he expressed that he thought he had this glorious purpose.
He seemed happy and joyful, so I made peace with his choice.
However, when you stab someone with a label, you give them no choice.
[editline]24th June 2012[/editline]
And there's no harm in pandering at all. It's much better to hold it, than get pissed off. Why? Because otherwise, you'll cause a pain within them that will be hard to rid of.
Sure they have choice. They have the choice to re-evaluate their philosophical beliefs and recognise their views are irrational and adopt a different set.
[QUOTE=AK'z;36467210]And there's no harm in pandering at all. It's much better to hold it, than get pissed off. Why? Because otherwise, you'll cause a pain within them that will be hard to rid of.[/QUOTE]
Yeah no harm, you're just giving license to crazy.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36467231]Yeah no harm, you're just giving license to crazy.[/QUOTE]
I gave my license to Charles Manson ages ago, I thought I'd start there to make things easier. :v:
[QUOTE=AK'z;36467210]You can twist that however you like, I only did that so it would make sense to you. It's not my whole-hearted opinion because then nobody will understand.
I didn't condescend the mormon one bit, neither did I want to argue and convert him out. He was a convert himself, so I thought to let that be. I expressed my beliefs, and he expressed that he thought he had this glorious purpose.
He seemed happy and joyful, so I made peace with his choice.
However, when you stab someone with a label, you give them no choice.
[editline]24th June 2012[/editline]
[b]And there's no harm in pandering at all. It's much better to hold it, than get pissed off. Why? Because otherwise, you'll cause a pain within them that will be hard to rid of.[/b][/QUOTE]
Oh fuck that, telling people you disagree with their beliefs won't hurt them in any way and if it does then frankly they had issues with their own beliefs in the first place.
I feel embarrassed whenever I'm proven wrong but ultimately it's an important part of character development. If it's something I thought I concluded for good reason then it does sting a little, I won't lie. But being a rational person is absolutely integral to being happy and fulfilled. Pretending that you think someone's beliefs are rational just to save them the embarrassment is just silly. I'm not saying you should go out of your way to dissuade people from faith, but if that's the discussion you're having, you owe it to everyone to tell your honest thoughts.
True, but it'd be pointless to tell him I disagree when he knew full well that I'm not a mormon.
I knew fuck all about mormonism at the time, so I believe the words exchanged helped me get an idea of what he feels.
[QUOTE=AK'z;36467273]True, but it'd be pointless to tell him I disagree when he knew full well that I'm not a mormon.
I knew fuck all about mormonism at the time, so I believe the words exchanged helped me get an idea of what he feels.[/QUOTE]
All I know is they wear magic underwear/long johns and that's enough for me to outright call them retarded.
While everyone is indeed entitled to their own opinion, I have no duty to take it seriously.
It's not pointless if you back it up with philosophical argument. People need to recognise the implications of their beliefs. They should recognise that their belief system is irrational and that consequently, their metaphysical judgments lack philosophical integrity. They're perfectly welcome to choose faith over philosophical integrity, but they ought to know that they can't have both.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36467297]It's not pointless if you back it up with philosophical argument. People need to recognise the implications of their beliefs.[/QUOTE]
What you've been saying: "If these beliefs don't adhere to mine, then it's better to argue it out"
That's not why I talk to people.
[QUOTE=AK'z;36467309]What you've been saying: "If these beliefs don't adhere to mine, then it's better to argue it out"
That's not why I talk to people.[/QUOTE]
It's always better to argue it out. That way, both people get to strengthen their views with rational philosophical argument, or one of them realises their view is untenable. Either way, rationality wins, unless one or both of you lacks philosophical integrity. As long as people can recognise that they lack integrity then I think they're welcome to their irrational beliefs.
It's not about their beliefs adhering to mine; it's about their metaphysical values adhering to actual worldly phenomena rather than faith (faith is basically anti-philosophy imo).
[QUOTE=AK'z;36467309]What you've been saying: "If these beliefs don't adhere to mine, then it's better to argue it out"
That's not why I talk to people.[/QUOTE]
So you talk for, what, a verbal circle-jerk?
Discourse is where all good ideas are born. Nothing has ever been accomplished by refusing to challenge an idea.
Nothing [I]good[/I], anyway.
[QUOTE=AK'z;36467309]What you've been saying: "If these beliefs don't adhere to mine, then it's better to argue it out"
That's not why I talk to people.[/QUOTE]
But all you're doing then is pussy footing around each others ideas and views, throw down the gauntlet, stop stroking each others egos and attack each others views man, it's the only way to get anywhere.
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;36467368]But all you're doing then is pussy footing around each others ideas and views, throw down the gauntlet, stop stroking each others egos and attack each others views man, it's the only way to get anywhere.[/QUOTE]
We didn't develop communication just so we could talk about nothing.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36467377]We didn't develop communication just so we could talk about nothing.[/QUOTE]
I agree, what I'm saying is that if all you're gonna do is pat each other on the back for our different beliefs and go "look how all special and unique we are," then we're never gonna make any personal advancements in how we view the world. That's why you have you to lock horns and have a proper debate.
I don't want to get anywhere where beliefs are unified.
What I do want is for people to have a choice. I don't feel the need to attack, when I haven't been condescended by ANY other religious folk. Now believe that or not, but all these stories about folk being patronised have not happened to me.
Maybe one day there will be, but unless I want it to happen then I don't see it any time soon.
I also don't want to express my beliefs fully to 10 people who are reading, this ain't no peep show.
[QUOTE=AK'z;36467418]I don't want to get anywhere where beliefs are unified.[/QUOTE]
So because you don't want a New World Order means nobody should ever challenge anyone's views on anything and we should all just verbally blow each other instead of asking questions and using persuasive rhetoric.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36467377]We didn't develop communication just so we could talk about nothing.[/QUOTE]
I want to communicate, to learn new perspectives. You can do otherwise, I'm not going to argue that. If you feel that it's what you should do, by all means go ahead.
Socrates, he be rolling in his grave.
[editline]24th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=AK'z;36467430]I want to communicate, to learn new perspectives.[/QUOTE]
Knowledge is meaningless if you never apply it.
You can know everything in the world. Nobody will remember your name when you're dead if you never accomplished anything with it.
If you're content to let the world trample on you, so be it.
Don't condescend to the rest of us when we don't take that shit.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36467429]So because you don't want a New World Order means nobody should ever challenge anyone's views on anything and we should all just verbally blow each other instead of asking questions and using persuasive rhetoric.[/QUOTE]
Correct.
I'm no robot for your NWO.
[editline]24th June 2012[/editline]
But I do admire it.
[editline]24th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lankist;36467431]
Knowledge is meaningless if you never apply it.
You can know everything in the world. Nobody will remember your name when you're dead if you never accomplished anything with it.[/QUOTE]
Well I'm not sure we can "know" anything, we can perceive and draw ideas in, but "know"? The only "arguement" anyone has, is that they know that they know that they know.
And also, I really don't care for my "status on earth". I quite frankly, don't care how others perceive me. They won't affect what I do.
[editline]24th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lankist;36467431]
If you're content to let the world trample on you, so be it.
Don't condescend to the rest of us when we don't take that shit.[/QUOTE]
If I've been condescending, then I'm sorry. But at least we can see this through.
[QUOTE=AK'z;36467112]However I know how atheists like to bully agnostics hence why this whole labelling game should be scrapped.[/QUOTE]
This isn't condescending?
Are you recanting your flagrant generalization?
Because, if you are, I've successfully bullied you into silence.
And if you aren't, your whole argument is moot.
Where do you think a variety of beliefs come from? They come from a constant battering of argument, forcing you to develop your beliefs in ways that are less susceptible to attack. Religious belief is just so [I]stagnant,[/I] because religious people are too stubborn to defend their beliefs against rational argument. Just look at any developed area of philosophy; take philosophy of mind. There's so many different views surrounding what the mind even consists in, and every one of them (with the exception of a couple) exist in virtue of argumentative discourse, not just someone standing up and saying "well I think THIS is the mind" and then refusing to let anyone attack his claims. If you want people to have an array of systems of belief to choose from, argue away. If you want systems of belief to stagnate and become a pointless exercise, give people faith.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36467487]This isn't condescending?
Are you recanting your flagrant generalization?
Because, if you are, I've successfully bullied you into silence.
And if you aren't, your whole argument is moot.[/QUOTE]
Okay that one point, I will apologise for. (still true)
[QUOTE=AK'z;36467502]Okay that one point, I will apologise for. (still true)[/QUOTE]
So you apologize for making it, but you still assert that it's true.
That's called "passive-aggressive bullshit."
Either you respect everyone's views or you're full of condescending shit.
If you aren't willing to argue your statement, don't sit here and fucking make it while pretending to be a neutral party.
Okay okay, I mean it this time. Forgive.
[editline]24th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lankist;36467114]That's because 'agnostics' are illiterate people who don't know what fucking gnosticism is.
[/QUOTE]
oops.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.