|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 13, 2007 22:32:37 GMT -5
It's not funny, actually.
I know you've had these tendencies to be like this once in a while, but I never really saw it come into full force like this, not like THIS. Carry on, but sheesh!
|
|
|
Post by Hackfest on Nov 14, 2007 0:17:43 GMT -5
None of what you describe about "typical Christians" identifies me (as proven in MANY of my posts on this site), so I have no need to defend it. Of course, the first amendment means I don't have to prove anything to you, so that's good. Not that I was attempting to prove anything to you in the first place. I've said it before and I'll say it now: I am in these conversations reminded of a great line in The Matrix: Guy: Not everyone believes what you believe. Morpheus: My beliefs do not require them to.
Every angry, ignorant thing you said comes from somewhere, some injustice or bad experience in your life. I'm not interested in finding out what's wrong with you, so I don't care to know what that is. But you can't even pretend otherwise. Only an angry or juvenille person would change his avatar when he got into a debate. Actually, this can't be called a debate since you just flew off the deep end immediately. I noticed in your moved thread that you said the following:
"In the beginning, I was very civil, and I quite calmly outlined why their arguments were wrong, but it was largely ignored while they ran around patting each other on the back about how smart they think they are. When I have people telling me that something suddenly becomes true if enough people believe it, I think that's the underlying problem for why they don't understand me."
This is atrocious to even claim. The text is still there. Who do you usually talk to like this? Has it EVER worked? I don't know anyone that these attempts would work on, that's why I ask. Anyway, congrats, if you were trying to steer the thread into chaos instead of actually addressing it. I'm done with this one. I won't even check it again to see if you'll still be so very ignorant. I can't compete with someone who just invents other poster's responses that didn't actually happen. It is however, clear to me that you are stuck on some mindless level of defending something that was never even there to begin with. I'm sorry that you're stuck in that mindset, it must be maddening.
For the most part, I really enjoy the diverse viewpoints here, so in order not to taint that viewpoint of this excellent forum, I think I'll take a pass on anything you write if it starts as blatantly ignorant as your recent posts. I really respect this community, and refuse to let one disturbed individual ruin it for me.
|
|
|
Post by debateman on Nov 14, 2007 4:06:16 GMT -5
I wish that I could lower myself to the vulgarity and overt self-centered nature that was espoused throughout Tech's response, but I just couldn't do it. I tried to draft it out, but to be honest using words like "bullshit", "fucking", and the like reflect a lack of education and a tendency to think in small terms.
The tirade that our junior high teachers went on about the importance of vocabulary has been proven true. People respect individuals who speak/write clearly utilizing proper word choice and avoiding extensive swearing/jargon/slang.
Tech makes the claim that it is the defender of religions burden of proof to prove that God exists, yet he arrogantly dismisses the argument presented him without proper analysis of the issue. I made clear in my post one significant reason why God exists. God exists because He is believed in. Now this answer was not good enough for Tech, but lets examine how my answer is superior to the tripe that he opined.
1. The definition of reality is slightly different for each person. There are people in this world that exist in a completely different reality than the one the majority of us live in. An individual's reality is defined by their perception. It is how an individual understands/relates to something that determines how that information impacts their reality. For example, an individual who asserts the pretense they are highly educated (Tech) can have an ethereal experience and spend the rest of their lives searching for a scientific explanation (of which their might not be one). Others who have the same ethereal experience quickly attribute that to God. Neither is wrong yet nether is right. Tech can assume that his experience will eventually be explained by science, but that's not a guarantee.
2. God is a self-fulfilling prophecy. For something that doesn't exist, God has a mass of followers (all apparently not as smart as Tech, our resident genius). Thats counterintuitive. While it may not be logical on first glance, lets examine the facts. A) The majority of the people in the United States believe in God. B) A majority of that majority use their faith in everyday decision making. C) Because people are using their faith to act, they are creating a vehicle to God. Even if God were not to physically exist, He is at least a social phenomenon. If one were to believe that God does not exist in 'reality' they are denying the social phenomenon. Now Tech has used the social phenomenon as a point of contention with Christians, my question is a question that Tech tried to force on me. "Which is it?! Does he exist or does he not?" I've given plenty of examples to prove the existance of God. I've even referenced the arguments of Tech that prove my analysis that God at minimum exists because people have created Him through socialization.
Now, another area that Tech apparently needs some education in is business. Well Sir, you are in luck because that happens to be my specialization! We go back to this argument of the clerk in the store and the importance of faith or lack there of. A general rule of marketing/sales is that you have to believe what you are saying. That makes the sale more likely because it's not forced. It's natural. A clerk is not simply a clerk, the clerk is also a sales representative of that company. It is important that the individual reflect the values/mission of the business. It's an issue of professionalism. Sure, the business owner can pull someone off the street to run the cash register, but running the register is not enough. To ensure the success of the business the cashier must be able to make sales. For a cashier to make sales, they generally need a broad product knowledge in order to tailor the sale to the customer. Generally, a person who is not a Christian would not take the time to read many of the books that would be located in a Christian bookstore and thus would not have the broad product knowledge that should be required of that job.
A read of Tech's post shows another important thing. In my post I NEVER advocated discrimination based upon gender or race. My advocacy was clear. In situations where a person is expected to be a representative of a business, the business owner should be able to determine who is in that position through a discriminatory process. As a representative of the business, the person should share the values and support the mission of the company. A person should also 'look the part'. In our consumer based society that is a must. He likes to talk about infomercials as an example that disproves mine, yet he seems to forget that the majority of infomercials are ran by a host (a prop, nothing more) and the creator of the product. If he thinks that the creator of the product isn't going to stand behind the product and make sales, he must be delusional.
I would ask that you not be so arrogant as to think you have 'schooled' me Tech. It's going to take a lot more than the meager effort you have thus far made to get the better of me.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 14, 2007 4:43:49 GMT -5
Wow. That was a great rebuttal and a great post in general. Most excellent.
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 14, 2007 18:32:27 GMT -5
YEA! If a million people say something's true, then by george, it must be! Fantastic reasoning! YEA!
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 14, 2007 18:34:44 GMT -5
"To respect my freedom of delusion, you must allow me to violate civil rights laws. Afteral, it's ok when the big guy in the sky says it is. Fuck secular law!" YEA!
|
|
|
Post by jq on Nov 14, 2007 18:45:14 GMT -5
"To respect my freedom of delusion, you must allow me to violate civil rights laws. Afteral, it's ok when the big guy in the sky says it is. Fuck secular law!" YEA! Who's civil rights have been violated? YEA! If a million people say something's true, then by george, it must be! Fantastic reasoning! YEA! Do you believe in democracy? If you do... you can see how this is a contradictive statement...since in democracy we rely on a simple majority to make decisions...is democracy, too, failed reasoning?
|
|
|
Post by debateman on Nov 14, 2007 20:10:05 GMT -5
YEA! If a million people say something's true, then by george, it must be! Fantastic reasoning! YEA! Again, if you were to take a moment out of your need to feel superior (or "Pull your fucking head out of your ass you damned pea-brained dip-shit." in the vulgar terms you are used to spouting) you would see that my logic is undeniable. You skipped right over my analysis where I indicate that God does not have to be proven true to exist. God exists because His followers give Him the power to exist. His followers make decisions based upon His teachings (whether they be true or false teachings) and thus at minimum God exists through the actions of the people who believe in Him and use His teachings (again, whether they be true or false) to guide their lives. Your analysis is not comprehensive. First, your analysis states that "If a million people say something's true..." That analysis doesn't apply to spirituality. This isn't an issue believing blindly what they are told (in most cases), this is an issue of people finding science lacking, people needing direction in their lives, and people seeking knowledge greater than them and those they know to be flawed. These people put God at a level of infallibility. That means that God can't be wrong. If God can't be wrong and they 'get a message from God', they are going to act on that. Now you would say that this person is delusional (good call without the proper training to be making such a decision. A decision that requires analysis by a psychiatric professional.), but it could simply be that they have a 'hunch' or 'gut instinct'. Regardless of source, the individual believes that it's God. That makes the message super powerful and the person will act on that message as if God delivered it because they believe that. What a person believes to be true and what is true can be two different things, but a person is going to act on the knowledge that they have and the beliefs that they have. Thanks for not arguing the point.
|
|
|
Post by debateman on Nov 14, 2007 20:16:01 GMT -5
"To respect my freedom of delusion, you must allow me to violate civil rights laws. Afteral, it's ok when the big guy in the sky says it is. Fuck secular law!" YEA! I love it when you quote yourself. Makes for an interesting conversation and might indicate a mental disorder. Of course I'm just using my personal feelings considering that I'm not a trained psychiatric professional but just as you have used your personal feelings about religion to define those who practice it perhaps I should use the same standard on you? Likely not. Unlike you I am not so presumptuous as to claim that I have the knowledge or the psychiatric expertise to make such a claim. I will say that people can tell that you are struggling when you have to read into my post things that are not there. I am advocating that the law be nuanced because life is nuanced. Unlike your perfect robot world, there is not a one size fits all solution. This is the foundation of the majority of my argumentation. While you try to mandate a one size fits all solution that rarely works, I advocate a law that is nuanced and understand the complexity of human interaction.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 15, 2007 1:05:39 GMT -5
Debateman, I think YOU have said it best. There is not a one-size fits all solution to this. There is no way to make everyone happy.
As time moves on, I'm starting to question the validity of telling people what they can discriminate against at all, at any time. There are parts of me that have been moving more towards a libertarian platform on some issues, and that scares me a little, quite honestly. No, it scares me a LOT. That recent experience I had was really powerful and my viewpoint on many things has went more towards the open-minded.
I wish I was better at explaining how allowing people to discriminate against anything they want is more open minded, but I'm starting to think that the only way people can be themselves is if they're ALLOWED to be themselves. No law is going to change the way people feel--it's just going to change people's ability to talk about the way they feel. People who do not like one group of people or another are going to find a way to discriminate no matter if we have the toughest laws on the planet to keep people from discriminating. It's GOING to happen, so why should people feel they need to lie about things?
I may REALLY regret saying this sometime. I don't know. I got fired from a job when they found out I was gay. They had a whole scheme planned on how they were going to do it--it took two days. One supervisor would say--let me show you the quicker way to do this--and I said to him "that may not be completely accurate" and he says "if it goes just a little over when it's an order this big, it doesn't really mater". Then of course the next day I'm fired over putting out something that had more in it than the order. When I tried to say that the supervisor had done those orders, they acted like I was trying to make shit up.
How they found out about me? All of them wear provocative t-shirts--this was a warehouse job. One day I wore a shirt that read "some of my best friends are straight". Yes, it was a stupid thing to do. When their form of a provocative shirt was something that degrading to women, I should have put 1+1 together. Honestly, it would have come out anyway when they'd want their "manly" conversations in the break room. They would have asked me how I felt about something and I would have told them--maybe that "could" be considered stupid, but I don't lie about shit like that. If someone asks me if I'm gay, I'll tell them--yes, I'm gay.
Let me be clear about one thing--violence should NOT be tolerated.
And now for a reprise: People are going to discriminate no matter what. I'm probably REALLY going to regret this sometime, but maybe not. This has been a progression of thought that has been happening over a long period of time, and it didn't take much to make me go towards this viewpoint. Maybe it won't take much for me to go back to my old viewpoint, but I doubt it. I really doubt it now.
Have I just totaled my career by stating this? Maybe. But I'm sorry, it's the way I feel.
Oh my god. I'm having a really hard time clicking that Post Reply button. Maybe I shouldn't click that button. Maybe I should think about this a little more. No--it's how I genuinely feel at this time. I'm clicking the button.
|
|
|
Post by debateman on Nov 15, 2007 1:30:32 GMT -5
Thanks for the difficult post Kizz.
1) You understand the nuances of life. 2) You understand that law isn't going to change belief. 3) You show maturity in your understanding of human actions.
If we lived in a perfect robot world there would be a simple solution. That's not the case. Perhaps it's better that a person be discriminated against at hiring than it happening over an extended period of time limiting the full potential of the employee...
But that would mean we take into account the actions of people that don't 'fit the mold'. *gasp*
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 15, 2007 1:35:47 GMT -5
Sadly, that's not the same thing as saying that God exists because people believe in him, which is what you originally argued. You're simply gutting the meaning of "exists" and replacing it with your new definition so you can easily equivocate. You're attempting to use the word exists as everyone else does, then fluidly move to the new definition of "exists."
You are conflating the teaching with the figure. Christianity and it's philosophy exists, and that philosophy is ascribed to Jesus. It doesn't mean Jesus/God exists. It's like saying if someone writes a book of philosophy with a character named jack in it, but then claims created the philosophy, and if 99/100 believe believe in that book, jack exists in them. That's deliberately assraping the language to define your God into existence. You would no more have Jack exist by adhereing to a philosophy created by Bob saying Jack wrote it any more than believing in Christianity, created by people, would mean God exists.
Sure it does. You can't just slap the label "spiritual" on something so you cant wrap yourself up in a little bubble that exempts you from logical rules.
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 15, 2007 1:41:25 GMT -5
Why do you tolerate liars on your forum, Kizzume. This assbag just lied. Looking back at what he originally said in his post:
1.
Look at this Kizzume. What does it say? Here, I will outline it for you:
1. A majority belief in something is proof of its existence. 2. Most Americans believe in God 3. Therefore, that's proof of God's existence.
Now he turns around and pretends he never said that and tries to backpeddle and play the equivocation game with the word "exists" by gutting it of it's real meaning and replacing it with his assraped definition. Interesting how he outright says majority X = truth of Y, but when called on it, backpeddles and goes "oh no no, I REALLY meant it just means he's alive in their arts not REALLY there objectively. Despite the fact that that's entirely what any reasonable person would see his statement as meaning.
He thinks his bullshit is slick. Sorry. It's not. The only thing undeniable, is that his logic is bad.
|
|
|
Post by debateman on Nov 15, 2007 1:57:04 GMT -5
You apparently didn't read the post where I explained the existence of God. Either you decided to ignore that until now to try to make a point hoping that I would forget what I wrote or you simply overlooked it. Regardless of reason, it's sloppy debating. I have explained how God exists as a social phenomenon yet you haven't really addressed that. You haven't address that it's an existence as a social phenomenon that gives God the power. There is no evidence that UFO's exist, yet there are people who believe in them. There is a social power that is given to aliens yet they don't exist right? Perhaps you should do more study of the social sciences and human perception/belief creation. That would do you well in your future debates. Until then, you again haven't really addressed the issue. As far as 'ass raping' the language, perhaps you should recheck your definitions. Language is not an exact science and there are many definitions for each word. My usage is correct for my intent.
Actually, you can. It's called social sciences. It's a study of human beings which aren't logical creatures.
Says you. Evidence has never been a requirement of a belief. Again, some study of the social sciences could help your understanding here. Beyond that, the Bible does support the theory that God is infallible. Perhaps some extensive reading of that book would do you some good in debate as well. I don't have to use the Bible to prove that God exists. I merely can use the actions of the individuals who believe in him to prove his existence.
Are you a medical professional with the license to make such a determination? If not, then avoid doing so. You may believe that they are delusional but that is quite different from them actually being delusional. If you were to use proper wording for your argumentation, it could be accepted. You are trying to make a statement of belief into a statement of fact. First, it's something you are not qualified to do. Second, it's the very thing you are condemning Christians for.
Again, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that I had to connect all the dots for you and draw a pretty picture. I was under the assumption that you were a super genius. Isn't that the image you were trying to give? I thought that you were so smart and superior to me that you could reasonably come to the conclusion. But if you go back, the analysis is there. If anyone has been bastardizing the language, it's been you and your incessant use of vulgarity. It's not acceptable in academic discussions.
|
|
|
Post by debateman on Nov 15, 2007 2:01:53 GMT -5
Why do you tolerate liars on your forum, Kizzume. This assbag just lied. Looking back at what he originally said in his post: 1. Look at this Kizzume. What does it say? Here, I will outline it for you: 1. A majority belief in something is proof of its existence. 2. Most Americans believe in God 3. Therefore, that's proof of God's existence. Now he turns around and pretends he never said that and tries to backpeddle and play the equivocation game with the word "exists" by gutting it of it's real meaning and replacing it with his assraped definition. Interesting how he outright says majority X = truth of Y, but when called on it, backpeddles and goes "oh no no, I REALLY meant it just means he's alive in their arts not REALLY there objectively. Despite the fact that that's entirely what any reasonable person would see his statement as meaning. He thinks his bullshit is slick. Sorry. It's not. The only thing undeniable, is that his logic is bad. Oh come on now... I've already said that I'm sorry that I had to connect all the dots for you. Crying to daddy isn't necessary unless of course you can't handle the issue yourself through argumentation.
|
|