Christian and Athiest in the same house!

[shimsham]

he who angers you controls you.


its still curious to me why people get so riled up over something they claim to not care about. a great example of how easy it is to manipulate someone emotionally by exploiting the built in hypocrisy in the human personality as a whole.

edit for speelong.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: RBachman
Still going at it Vic? How many conversions has your namecalling and condescending attitude gotten you here at AT? Just curious

What the heck? Your first post on the thread and it is namecalling someone about namecalling?

Talk about calling the hypocrite a hypocrite. :roll:

Hello, and welcome to the Anandtech forums! You should familiarize yourself by reading a few threads before posting to get an idea of what the forum and its posters are like. Thanks for visiting!

LOL... okay Mr Post Count : 2877 Joined 08/17/2005. :roll:

Seriously, you are going to get petulant like that?

It's Vic's MO here, every single thread even peripherally about religion attracts him like Michael Jackson to boy scout conventions. I honestly think he has some sort of script alerting him by email when a thread brings up religion so he can come and spew his BS in it, liberally calling people idiots and promoting deism while claiming agnosticism. If you haven't realized this, you must not peruse the forum often - which, given a ppd average of 2.53, isn't surprising.

LOL... I only started to post frequently for the past year and a half. Before I just checked for hot deals and that was it. :roll: You should really notice that stuff. I mean dang, I posted enough on this one thread today to pass the ppd average by 10x.

And that still doesn't preclude you from being an ass for namecalling someone else on your first post in a thread. :roll:

Silly RBachman, trick are for kids. Don't act like one.

 

[chambersc]

"the only way to throughly propogate a myth is to constantly bombard the masses with your false truths."
-Christopher Chambers (me) TRADEMARK THIS!

 

[AFSCrazy]

I'm in the same boat, and have to say it sucks pretty bad. My whole family (mom and dads side) are very religious, my dad was almost a priest even. Around the age 12 or so, I stopped going to church. I never believed in god, and I just outright refused to go. My parents lay off the topic, but whenever I go to a family gathering I have to hear all these "god" stories and quotes from the bible. I simply say "I don't believe in god but have nothing against it.", but it's never good enough. And every time I meet a christian person and they ask if I believfe ing od, I give my usual response, and they always say "why?". WTF? If I said "I'm jewish", they wouldn't ask why, so why the third degree? It's like they want me to tell them some story about a misgiving I had with god, and then they can reference some "how jesus saved me" passage and I will somehow be a believer again.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: chambersc
"the only way to throughly propogate a myth is to constantly bombard the masses with your false truths."
-Christopher Chambers (me) TRADEMARK THIS!

The best way to propogate a myth is to create one people want to believe.

-HoP

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: phantom309

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: phantom309

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: phantom309
The reason isn't just spiritual. For better or worse, Christian values are an enormous part of Western culture. Whether one agrees with them or not, it's vital to understand them well if one is to understand mainstream America.

You can receive a far more accurate accounting of that from some good history classes than you ever will from a church. Also, the only useful thing I can see picking up is as a mirror to show just how UNCHRISTIAN America is in basically every way possible.

Don't confuse the map with the territory.

OMG that's an AWESOME PHRASE!!!

Can I borrow that for some essays in the future? Actually I'll use it anyway, I just wanted to appear polite for a change to keep people guessing.

Seriously though, do you know where that phrase comes from?

And to address your point, that's why I said good, and some, instead of just one history class. Being 'in' something, while it provides an experience, also provides a narrow and biased view of the thing. The study of a thing (when done correctly) provides a much broader and less slanted picture. You couldn't possibly accurately convey what went on in Iran with the coup just by being in Iran or America during it. You have to have all the compiled resources to explain how America overthrew a budding and grateful democracy in order to support empirialism and capital gain for elites.

I agree everyone should go to all sorts of different churches a few times for the experience...just don't think you're learning anything about what's really going on by doing so.

I appreciate the lecture on American imperialism and the proper use of philosophical cliches. Since I'm usually on the other side of these types of arguments I must confess this is all a bit awkward. I will defer to your obviously superior education and intelligence from here on out. However, let me clarify. The "experience" of Christianity is exactly what I want my kids to have. They will have the rest of their lives to learn the history of the Evil Christian White Male, and I'm sure they will. What they do with their experience and knowledge is up to them.

I can understand what you're saying. I've just had such horrible experiences throughout my life that I'm not willing to risk the bad to gain the good. I have no problem with my daughter becoming a Christian, either for real or just for the experience. I'd just prefer she be at a higher stage of development when she begins.

So any idea where that phrase comes from? I could research it, but I'm neck deep in research papers right now. 8-(

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: phantom309
Since I'm usually on the other side of these types of arguments I must confess this is all a bit awkward. I will defer to your obviously superior education and intelligence from here on out. However, let me clarify. The "experience" of Christianity is exactly what I want my kids to have. They will have the rest of their lives to learn the history of the Evil Christian White Male, and I'm sure they will. What they do with their experience and knowledge is up to them.

Agreed. My resposibility for my future kids is to raise them up in the way they should go, not in the way they will go. Even if I want them with all my heart to choose the right thing, that is not my purpose.

**EDIT**
"Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it."
[Proverbs 22:6]

I guess I'm just not arrogant enough to believe I know what my kids should be when they grow up, or what they should believe. And that's saying quite a bit, given my level of general arrogance.

I prefer to give them all the knowledge, and teach them how to think about things. Then most of the experiences it's up to them to want and have...or not.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: shimsham
he who angers you controls you.


its still curious to me why people get so riled up over something they claim to not care about. a great example of how easy it is to manipulate someone emotionally by exploiting the built in hypocrisy in the human personality as a whole.

edit for speelong.

Because I see children as largely without advocacy or protection. And because I believe a HUGE amount of the horrible things in our world are because of these types of issues (egocentrism, rights infringement, erosion of the individual, religious ire, etc). And I believe the way to make the world better (since you can't oppose it directly) is to help children be better than our parents were...so that they can do the same, and so on until the problems are gone.

I just had so much trouble as a kid with people trying to influence, control, and manipulate me that now I'm hypersensitive to it and want to put on a cape and tights every time I perceive it happening.

 

[phantom309]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: phantom309

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: phantom309

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: phantom309
The reason isn't just spiritual. For better or worse, Christian values are an enormous part of Western culture. Whether one agrees with them or not, it's vital to understand them well if one is to understand mainstream America.

You can receive a far more accurate accounting of that from some good history classes than you ever will from a church. Also, the only useful thing I can see picking up is as a mirror to show just how UNCHRISTIAN America is in basically every way possible.

Don't confuse the map with the territory.

OMG that's an AWESOME PHRASE!!!

Can I borrow that for some essays in the future? Actually I'll use it anyway, I just wanted to appear polite for a change to keep people guessing.

Seriously though, do you know where that phrase comes from?

And to address your point, that's why I said good, and some, instead of just one history class. Being 'in' something, while it provides an experience, also provides a narrow and biased view of the thing. The study of a thing (when done correctly) provides a much broader and less slanted picture. You couldn't possibly accurately convey what went on in Iran with the coup just by being in Iran or America during it. You have to have all the compiled resources to explain how America overthrew a budding and grateful democracy in order to support empirialism and capital gain for elites.

I agree everyone should go to all sorts of different churches a few times for the experience...just don't think you're learning anything about what's really going on by doing so.

I appreciate the lecture on American imperialism and the proper use of philosophical cliches. Since I'm usually on the other side of these types of arguments I must confess this is all a bit awkward. I will defer to your obviously superior education and intelligence from here on out. However, let me clarify. The "experience" of Christianity is exactly what I want my kids to have. They will have the rest of their lives to learn the history of the Evil Christian White Male, and I'm sure they will. What they do with their experience and knowledge is up to them.

I can understand what you're saying. I've just had such horrible experiences throughout my life that I'm not willing to risk the bad to gain the good. I have no problem with my daughter becoming a Christian, either for real or just for the experience. I'd just prefer she be at a higher stage of development when she begins.

So any idea where that phrase comes from? I could research it, but I'm neck deep in research papers right now. 8-(

It's a basic concept of philosophy that boringly goes back a couple hundred years. It's also a central tenet of neuro-linguistic programming, which is a sort of pop-culture study of mind control rooted in the chronic inability of philosophers and psychologists to pick up chicks.

More importantly, it was a phrase my ex-girlfriend (Phd, Philosophy, Fordham) used to use in arguments to tie my brain into knots.

edit: Kidding aside, this from Wikipedia, bolds mine:

The expression "the map is not the territory" first appeared in print in a paper that Alfred Korzybski gave at a meeting of the American Mathematical Society in New Orleans, Louisiana in 1931: [2]

A) A map may have a structure similar or dissimilar to the structure of the terrritory...
C) A map is not the territory.
It is used as a premise in Korzybski's General Semantics, and in neuro-linguistic programming.

This concept also occurs in the discussion of exoteric and esoteric religions. Exoteric concepts are concepts which can be fully conveyed using descriptors and language constructs, such as mathematics. Esoteric concepts are concepts which cannot be fully conveyed except by direct experience. For example, a person who has never tasted an apple will never fully understand through language what the taste of an apple is. Only through direct experience - eating an apple - can that experience be fully understood.

Lewis Carroll, in Sylvie and Bruno (1889), made a somewhat related point humorously with his description of a fictional map that had "the scale of a mile to the mile." A character notes some practical difficulties with such a map and states that "we now use the country itself, as its own map, and I assure you it does nearly as well."

David Foster Wallace's novel Infinite Jest has a scene in which the students at Enfield Tennis Academy confuse the map with the territory while playing the game Eschaton, resulting in a breakdown of the structure of the game, mass confusion, and several injuries.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: RBachman
Still going at it Vic? How many conversions has your namecalling and condescending attitude gotten you here at AT? Just curious

At least I actually argue the topic at hand, unlike you who does nothing but namecalling because you don't actually have any argument.

 

[LtPage1]

Darwinism has nothing to do with atheism or Christianity. Evolution is a verifiable scientific fact, which has no bearing on a person's faith.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
But, like I pointed out in another post, you have age limits in America based on the idea that important decisions should be made by the individual only after they're able to. drinking, military, driving, voting, sex, etc.

Those "important decisions" are not personal decisions but ones that carry societal responsibility. Do you see that?

You cannot disconnect religion from society like that. Ones religious affiliations could GREATLY impact choices of sexuality, voting, possibly military choice, etc. I see your reasoning, but I think you're drawing a line where no clear line exists.

Let me try it ithis way: I can't vote for a particular political party candidate until I'm 18 because I have to be old enough to make those decisions with some knowledge and wisdom. You say who I vote for affects society as a whole. If I'm raised in the KKK or extremist Islamic or whatever, don't those religious choices also impact society? And yet, a parent can choose to put a child into one of those churches, even against their will, while a supergenius who gets a college degree in political science at age 16 can NOT vote. As a less extreme example, being a fundamentalist evangelical gives a strong likelihood that I will be voting Republican, thereby influencing society. Therefore joining a church is influencing society.

So what you're saying is that we should repeal the freedom of and from religion clause from the First Amendment because some religious views might cause some people to run contrary to your political views and agenda?

:roll:

Ummmm, not even remotely.

I'm pointing out that my claim that choice of religion is similar to choice of voting or drinking or having sex, is valid with regards to age limitations. I further went on to offer refutation of your concept of social impact being the deciding factor of differentiation.

Religion is a personal belief system based customs and tradition. Nothing more. You did not refute my "concept of social impact" (as you called it), you simply aired your political prejudices. Perhaps if you didn't involve your personal beliefs in the political sphere so strongly against other peoples' personal beliefs, they would not retaliate in kind (and vice versa forever, it does not matter who started it first).
In the meantime, your suggestion is not only ridiculous, it would be a complete violation of the 1st Amendment, with government dictating to parents what religions could be taught and to whom.
And shocking as this might be to you, most children of religious parents end up rebelling at some point against their parents and the religious beliefs that they were taught. Everyone figures it out on their own without your help.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: DaShen
LOL... I only started to post frequently for the past year and a half. Before I just checked for hot deals and that was it. :roll: You should really notice that stuff. I mean dang, I posted enough on this one thread today to pass the ppd average by 10x.

And that still doesn't preclude you from being an ass for namecalling someone else on your first post in a thread. :roll:

Silly RBachman, trick are for kids. Don't act like one.

Your hero Vic starts the namecalling without fail in his threads and has gone so far as to admit and defend doing so. Next?

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: RBachman
Still going at it Vic? How many conversions has your namecalling and condescending attitude gotten you here at AT? Just curious

At least I actually argue the topic at hand, unlike you who does nothing but namecalling because you don't actually have any argument.

I've called no names. I didn't argue the topic in the last thread because doing so is pointless, I just wanted to point out some glaring gaps in your logic.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: RBachman
It's Vic's MO here, every single thread even peripherally about religion attracts him like Michael Jackson to boy scout conventions. I honestly think he has some sort of script alerting him by email when a thread brings up religion so he can come and spew his BS in it, liberally calling people idiots and promoting deism while claiming agnosticism. If you haven't realized this, you must not peruse the forum often - which, given a ppd average of 2.53, isn't surprising.

:roll:

Point out one post in this thread where I promoted deism. Just ONE.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: RBachman
I've called no names. I didn't argue the topic in the last thread because doing so is pointless, I just wanted to point out some glaring gaps in your logic.

And yet you made nothing but direct personal attacks while at the same you didn't point out any glaring gaps in my logic. Yes, yes, I know you thought you did... but no one else agreed with you, did they? All you did was demonstrate an immature lack of comprehension, accusing anyone and everyone who didn't support you fully of believing in the flying spaghetti monster.

 

[BAMAVOO]

You never should have married to begin with. She should have found a christian man to live her christian life.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Vic
Point out one post in this thread where I promoted deism. Just ONE.

Every single post you make asserts the stupidity and ego of atheists. You claim some form of agnosticism but it's a transparent veneer, evidenced by the fact you never say a bad word about those with traditional religious beliefts, without a disclaimer that you're only talking about radical fundamentalists. As such your agenda is obvious.

Originally posted by: Vic
And yet you made nothing but direct personal attacks while at the same you didn't point out any glaring gaps in my logic. Yes, yes, I know you thought you did... but no one else agreed with you, did they? All you did was demonstrate an immature lack of comprehension, accusing anyone and everyone who didn't support you fully of believing in the flying spaghetti monster.

At that point we were the only two still reading the thread, of course no one else agreed with either of us Again, your ability to selectively ignore reality comes into play. There's no arguing with someone who won't accept a common reality as a basis for debate points.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BAMAVOO
You never should have married to begin with. She should have found a christian man to live her christian life.

Should we bring back the miscegenation laws?

 

[drinkmorejava]

and then there's me who would have a hard enough time marrying someone who's not catholic. I suppose I could just go a rant, but I have better things to do.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: DougK62
What's it called when you believe in religion "just in case" there is a heaven/hell? It escapes me.

Pascal's Wager.

 

[Howard]

removed as per Gurck's request

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Bryophyte
I decided when I was younger that I would never date or fvck anyone religious

Still in the running!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: Vic
Point out one post in this thread where I promoted deism. Just ONE.

Every single post you make asserts the stupidity and ego of atheists. You claim some form of agnosticism but it's a transparent veneer, evidenced by the fact you never say a bad word about those with traditional religious beliefts, without a disclaimer that you're only talking about radical fundamentalists. As such your agenda is obvious.

I only point out their own blatant hypocrisy and bigotry. I don't stop at atheists, I do this to everyone. In case you haven't noticed, pointing out the hypocrisy and bigotry of EVERYONE who is blind to their own IS my agenda. I don't doubt that in your dim dualistic world that that MUST mean that I am some kind of theist, the same way you think that everyone who isn't a Democrat MUST be a Republican. In the real world, that ain't so.

Originally posted by: Vic
And yet you made nothing but direct personal attacks while at the same you didn't point out any glaring gaps in my logic. Yes, yes, I know you thought you did... but no one else agreed with you, did they? All you did was demonstrate an immature lack of comprehension, accusing anyone and everyone who didn't support you fully of believing in the flying spaghetti monster.

At that point we were the only two still reading the thread, of course no one else agreed with either of us Again, your ability to selectively ignore reality comes into play. There's no arguing with someone who won't accept a common reality as a basis for debate points.

Really? I think Satchel and tweakmm, both of whom you insulted uncalled-for, would disagree. And oddly, everyone else but the "FSM FTW" spammers did agree with me.

Let me explain why I won't accept your "common reality." It's because it is your deluded reality that you are insisting that I accept (and as I partially explained above). It is not reality as it actually exists. Your reality is not objective, but subjective. Your reality is that truth depends on which team you join.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Vic
I only point out their own blatant hypocrisy and bigotry. I don't stop at atheists, I do this to everyone. In case you haven't noticed, pointing out the hypocrisy and bigotry of EVERYONE who is blind to their own IS my agenda. I don't doubt that in your dim dualistic world that that MUST mean that I am some kind of theist, the same way you think that everyone who isn't a Democrat MUST be a Republican. In the real world, that ain't so.

Again, I've never once seen you insult, berate, degrade or otherwise badmouth anyone with traditional religious beliefs without a disclaimer that you're referring only to fundamentalists. It's something even the fundies don't believe themselves to be; your wording assures them you're talking about "the other guy", "the crazy ones" etc. Meanwhile you directly and viciously attack all atheists. Come off it.

Let me explain why I won't accept your "common reality." It's because it is your deluded reality that you are insisting that I accept (and as I partially explained above). It is not reality as it actually exists. Your reality is not objective, but subjective. Your reality is that truth depends on which team you join.

FFS, my reality is what is in the dictionary! How much more clear could this be?

 

[smopoim86]

I find it very intresting(almost crazy) that two ppl with such diff views could actually get along in a relationship. When i read the title of the post i figure the parents were one way and had a kid looking ito other beliefs.