Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - "Why do atheists get so outspoken and militant?" In this thread I do just that.

scottstall · 11-10-2006, 08:33 AM

I'd like to point the follwing at both the beginning and very close to the end of this post so that its most likely to be read.

As for stating you were lying above, you are correct. I made a mistake, and I apologize, looking in review you said "Unitarian Christian" and those that actually cared to would have looked up the term's and come to the valid conclusion.

The only way that could be construed as a lie by my definition is by the listener's laziness, at which point, its the listener choosing not to understand and the only remediation being the speaker going way out of the way to make themselves understood.

I do disagree on several points though. Theres no true definition of what a "good Christian" is, but I believe more than 50% of christians would agree that a requirement to being christian would be acknowledging Jesus as the messiah. When people believe different things but hold the same label to themselves, it's rather common to adjust the definition of that label to be the common ground. I believe in this case, the best and most useful common ground you can find is "A Christian is someone who believes that Jesus was the messiah."

Hence, a practicing Jew is not a Christian as a practicing Jew does not believe Jesus was the messiah. Ask your Jewish friends if a significant number of Jews believe that Jesus was a prophet, therefore speaking god's word. That was the point I was trying to make with the Rabbi statement. I've read in several places that Muslim's believe that Jesus was a prophet, but that Mohamed was the messiah. Since Jesus wasn't the messiah, they aren't Christian.

A good deal of Jesus's teachings is summed up in his version of the Golden Rule. "Love others as you'd have them love unto you." I believe is how it goes. Almost everyone believes in this, and as you stated you believe that theres a great deal of error in the bible. In theory, everyone that believes that could say that they are a Christian, by dismissing just about everything, all the miracles, all the stuff everyone else said, in any translation, except what they think Jesus taught, and they can interpret that at their will. Most atheists, should they look at what Jesus taught, will agree with the ideas he had on how to treat other people. Are they Christians now?

I believe in defining words by merit of their definition, and I see alot more merit in my definition than yours. In point of fact, I'm going to hold to that definition until it doesn't apply to the significant majority of people describing themselves as Christians. Maybe there is no right and wrong definition for a Christian, but there are better and worse, and I feel I've found a better one than yours. I've supplied reasoning for why. Your more than welcome to dispute why your definition of Christian is better, but unless it encompasses most of the people describing themselves as Christians, and not a good deal of people that don't describe themselves as Christians, I'm still going to come to the conclusion that my definition is better. The point of a label such as Christianity, is to distinguish people by a common belief or action. This is why what I state doesn't fall under the scotsman fallacy, in the classic example of the scotsman fallacy there's two different beliefs of what a scotsman is, neither is more common really, and neither is horridly wrong. One's talking more about an attitude, another's talking about where someone was raised.

As for my definition of lying, please do not misrepresent me. That word "letting" is very important. If they walk away with a misunderstanding and you don't know they're misunderstanding something, then you aren't lying. You didn't let them walk away with a misunderstanding. I prefer my definition of lying because of it's merit, people who participate in a deception by witnessing it and not acting to correct it, are lying. A liar would be anyone who doesn't do their part to not let a lie perpetuate. Ever accused someone of lying because they gave you just enough true information to make you think one thing, lead you to think something, then suddenly stopped? Maybe there was no intent to manipulate, maybe there is literally no reason for them to do so. Maybe they just got tired of representing sides of a disagreement, and so decided not to cover the other side that leads to a balanced understanding. By my definition, though they spoke only truth, had no intent to lie to begin with, and had no intent to lie at all really, they are lying, because they know your walking away with a misunderstanding. They've done you a disservice.

Oh, as for the scotsman fallacy, the reason its a problem is there really is no better way to describe what a scotsman is. However, I have outlined the problems with your definition of a Christian (athesits can be Christians and atheists at the same time), and why mine has at least a bit more merit. It doesn't apply, at least from my understanding of the situation.

Just to clarify another assumption you may have of me, I don't believe that lying is wrong in every case, especially by my own definition. Jew's in the holocaust that stated they renounced their religion, or lied about their race, but actually kept on practicing and were born to Jewish people, while they did lie by my definition and yours, didn't do anything wrong. They may not be good Jew's as according to other Jewish people, but they did nothing that would violate an objective morality. And alot of times if a deception gets played out in front of you, it's best to just let it happen as its not your place to step in. I tend to step in when it will more than likely cause harm. But exceptions are made almost daily nowadays. It'd probably be more apt to say I try to shutdown what I view as a deception when I feel like it. Since I have a strong conscience, that tends to happen alot especially when regarding those I view as friends, but sometimes I'm just tired, and ultimately its up to the listener to figure when he's being lied to, not of the spectators to tell the listener.

Repeated so its noticed...

As for stating you were lying above, you are correct. I made a mistake, and I apologize, looking in review you said "Unitarian Christian" and those that actually cared to would have looked up the term's and come to the valid conclusion of what they mean when put together. Especially with the help of the article you linked about if the UUA is a christian organization.

One of my friends, one I value very much artfully dodges the labeling issue when people ask what religion he is. If someone asked him if he's Christian he'll go "No. I'm Kasey [blanking his last name]" and he'll explain if you actually want to know what he believes, you'll get to know him. According to your definition he's a Christian, as he believes most everything Jesus taught. He also believes there is no higher power, that we are that higher power, we chose to fracture ourselves from eachother, and we'll go back to eachother after death, and maybe choose to do it again. It's very similar to the beliefs of buddhism in a religious context, as I've come to understand it, except that he doesn't believe existence in this physical world is undesireable.

I deal with the labeling issue by stating that they would probably label me as an atheist leaning agnostic, and that I choose to believe what I believe not only because theres proof for it (or a good deal of non-proof for anything else and it's better to say "I don't know" when theres no real evidence as to the nature of god), and that I also believe in believing what you have to to get through the day.

*continues on into forever...*

11-10-2006, 08:33 AM	#31 (permalink)
scottstall Upright	I'd like to point the follwing at both the beginning and very close to the end of this post so that its most likely to be read. As for stating you were lying above, you are correct. I made a mistake, and I apologize, looking in review you said "Unitarian Christian" and those that actually cared to would have looked up the term's and come to the valid conclusion. The only way that could be construed as a lie by my definition is by the listener's laziness, at which point, its the listener choosing not to understand and the only remediation being the speaker going way out of the way to make themselves understood. I do disagree on several points though. Theres no true definition of what a "good Christian" is, but I believe more than 50% of christians would agree that a requirement to being christian would be acknowledging Jesus as the messiah. When people believe different things but hold the same label to themselves, it's rather common to adjust the definition of that label to be the common ground. I believe in this case, the best and most useful common ground you can find is "A Christian is someone who believes that Jesus was the messiah." Hence, a practicing Jew is not a Christian as a practicing Jew does not believe Jesus was the messiah. Ask your Jewish friends if a significant number of Jews believe that Jesus was a prophet, therefore speaking god's word. That was the point I was trying to make with the Rabbi statement. I've read in several places that Muslim's believe that Jesus was a prophet, but that Mohamed was the messiah. Since Jesus wasn't the messiah, they aren't Christian. A good deal of Jesus's teachings is summed up in his version of the Golden Rule. "Love others as you'd have them love unto you." I believe is how it goes. Almost everyone believes in this, and as you stated you believe that theres a great deal of error in the bible. In theory, everyone that believes that could say that they are a Christian, by dismissing just about everything, all the miracles, all the stuff everyone else said, in any translation, except what they think Jesus taught, and they can interpret that at their will. Most atheists, should they look at what Jesus taught, will agree with the ideas he had on how to treat other people. Are they Christians now? I believe in defining words by merit of their definition, and I see alot more merit in my definition than yours. In point of fact, I'm going to hold to that definition until it doesn't apply to the significant majority of people describing themselves as Christians. Maybe there is no right and wrong definition for a Christian, but there are better and worse, and I feel I've found a better one than yours. I've supplied reasoning for why. Your more than welcome to dispute why your definition of Christian is better, but unless it encompasses most of the people describing themselves as Christians, and not a good deal of people that don't describe themselves as Christians, I'm still going to come to the conclusion that my definition is better. The point of a label such as Christianity, is to distinguish people by a common belief or action. This is why what I state doesn't fall under the scotsman fallacy, in the classic example of the scotsman fallacy there's two different beliefs of what a scotsman is, neither is more common really, and neither is horridly wrong. One's talking more about an attitude, another's talking about where someone was raised. As for my definition of lying, please do not misrepresent me. That word "letting" is very important. If they walk away with a misunderstanding and you don't know they're misunderstanding something, then you aren't lying. You didn't let them walk away with a misunderstanding. I prefer my definition of lying because of it's merit, people who participate in a deception by witnessing it and not acting to correct it, are lying. A liar would be anyone who doesn't do their part to not let a lie perpetuate. Ever accused someone of lying because they gave you just enough true information to make you think one thing, lead you to think something, then suddenly stopped? Maybe there was no intent to manipulate, maybe there is literally no reason for them to do so. Maybe they just got tired of representing sides of a disagreement, and so decided not to cover the other side that leads to a balanced understanding. By my definition, though they spoke only truth, had no intent to lie to begin with, and had no intent to lie at all really, they are lying, because they know your walking away with a misunderstanding. They've done you a disservice. Oh, as for the scotsman fallacy, the reason its a problem is there really is no better way to describe what a scotsman is. However, I have outlined the problems with your definition of a Christian (athesits can be Christians and atheists at the same time), and why mine has at least a bit more merit. It doesn't apply, at least from my understanding of the situation. Just to clarify another assumption you may have of me, I don't believe that lying is wrong in every case, especially by my own definition. Jew's in the holocaust that stated they renounced their religion, or lied about their race, but actually kept on practicing and were born to Jewish people, while they did lie by my definition and yours, didn't do anything wrong. They may not be good Jew's as according to other Jewish people, but they did nothing that would violate an objective morality. And alot of times if a deception gets played out in front of you, it's best to just let it happen as its not your place to step in. I tend to step in when it will more than likely cause harm. But exceptions are made almost daily nowadays. It'd probably be more apt to say I try to shutdown what I view as a deception when I feel like it. Since I have a strong conscience, that tends to happen alot especially when regarding those I view as friends, but sometimes I'm just tired, and ultimately its up to the listener to figure when he's being lied to, not of the spectators to tell the listener. Repeated so its noticed... As for stating you were lying above, you are correct. I made a mistake, and I apologize, looking in review you said "Unitarian Christian" and those that actually cared to would have looked up the term's and come to the valid conclusion of what they mean when put together. Especially with the help of the article you linked about if the UUA is a christian organization. One of my friends, one I value very much artfully dodges the labeling issue when people ask what religion he is. If someone asked him if he's Christian he'll go "No. I'm Kasey [blanking his last name]" and he'll explain if you actually want to know what he believes, you'll get to know him. According to your definition he's a Christian, as he believes most everything Jesus taught. He also believes there is no higher power, that we are that higher power, we chose to fracture ourselves from eachother, and we'll go back to eachother after death, and maybe choose to do it again. It's very similar to the beliefs of buddhism in a religious context, as I've come to understand it, except that he doesn't believe existence in this physical world is undesireable. I deal with the labeling issue by stating that they would probably label me as an atheist leaning agnostic, and that I choose to believe what I believe not only because theres proof for it (or a good deal of non-proof for anything else and it's better to say "I don't know" when theres no real evidence as to the nature of god), and that I also believe in believing what you have to to get through the day. continues on into forever...