Speaking on behalf - appropriate, correct?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-12-2012, 04:13 AM
RE: Speaking on behalf - appropriate, correct?
(18-12-2012 04:50 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Anyway, is it acceptable to speak on behalf of someone or a group of people?

For only as long as you're saying what they wanna hear. Ya know what works, here? (Don't tell the heathens, but...) Faith. Acceptable? Fuck that. Ya got something to say, get yer sayer out; besides, ya don't learn shit by being right, anyway. Undecided

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2012, 06:27 AM
RE: Speaking on behalf - appropriate, correct?
Perhaps I'm over-simplifying here, but there are just a few who speak on behalf of, say, God, or Jesus..... mebbe' they might want to reconsider that, eh?


Drinking Beverage

Drinking Beverage Grab a cuppa' joe; sit-n-read my blog for a spell: www.vaweber.wordpress.com
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Percepticon's post
19-12-2012, 08:48 AM
RE: Speaking on behalf - appropriate, correct?
(18-12-2012 06:06 PM)Vera Wrote:  
(18-12-2012 05:59 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I sometimes forget that a lot of you guys are old as shit. Drinking Beverage
Not to hijack KC's nice thread, but - old as shit? You'd think that shit is among the things that never get a chance to get old. All it takes is one flush, after all.

Sorry KC. So that you don't hate me too much, I'll chime in. I think that one can only speak for oneself and that - only for oneself at this particular moment. Today I'm not the person I was yesterday, nor the one I will be tomorrow. And even I can't know what me of a year from now will be like.
This is exactly why I don't like pictures of myself. That individual in the picture is not me. I am me. That is the old me. It doesn't matter if the picture is only a few minutes old, it isn't me. It is an impostor. He believes things I don't. I know things he doesn't.

I prefer pictures of other people, because that is how I view them because I must take mental snapshots of them in time as how I identify them, but I don't do that with who I am currently.



To KC though.
I was just wondering this morning about my own belief. I came to the realization that I can't actually identify the point in my life where I stopped believing in the christian god. I know when I admitted it to myself, but I don't know exactly how long I had been lying to myself about it. It is certainly true that the younger version of me that professed belief was just uninformed and unworldy enough to still believe, but education slowly started to life the veil and at some point, I was just fooling myself.

That is to say, your first point applies and it doesn't apply. It is a matter not only of who and how they think, but where at in their line of thinking they are.

I wonder how many sit in the pews and lie to themselves? Consider I wonder how you could administer a survey and get the truth from them about it? Consider

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
19-12-2012, 08:55 AM
RE: Speaking on behalf - appropriate, correct?
(19-12-2012 08:48 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  This is exactly why I don't like pictures of myself. That individual in the picture is not me. I am me.
That's not why I don't like pictures of myself. But because it is me in them Weeping

“Everything around me is evaporating. My whole life, my memories, my imagination and its contents, my personality - it's all evaporating. I continuously feel that I was someone else, that I felt something else, that I thought something else. What I'm attending here is a show with another set. And the show I'm attending is myself.”, Fernando Pessoa, The Book of Disquiet

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Vera's post
19-12-2012, 11:05 AM
RE: Speaking on behalf - appropriate, correct?
(18-12-2012 04:50 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  I don't know why I starting thinking about this... maybe it's because I spend so much time with you hellbound heathens... who knows.

Anyway, is it acceptable to speak on behalf of someone or a group of people?

You've seen the topic... someone comes by with a question for theists (Theists! Explain _______), and as everyone waits patiently for me to answer, a few heathens chime in and answer as if they were Christians.

"Well, when I was a Christian I believed _______."
"A Christian would probably say ______."

And, it's not just atheists doing this.... I know I answer for atheists all the time... because... like I said, I spend so much time here, I feel like I know how y'all think.

A few points are raised, though.

1) No True Scotsman (you can't answer for a Christian because you never really were a Christian because you're an atheist now).

This poses some validity because you now disassociate yourself from that group and no longer think like that group. It was your line of thinking that ultimately led you away from Christianity, which means that you never truly believed in the most absolute sense. Somewhere, there was some doubt. This doubt ultimately led to your atheism whether it was reached through rationale, logic, or simply reading the Bible.

Christianity requires an "engulfing, unshakable" faith... and anyone who does not have that will move away from it. Hence, No True Scotsman. You never were because you never had that type of faith.

2) Speaking from ignorance (this is contingent on the acceptance of my first point).

This isn't saying that you're stupid, unintelligent, or uniformed; however, this is simply stating that you are speaking from a point of view that was never reached or is unobtainable. If you were never really a Christian, but was under the guise that you were, then you can never speak on behalf or know a true Christian point of view because of ignorance.

Both of these points hold true for me as well. Upon further self reflection, maybe I was never an atheist because I still had faith... no matter how small... it was still there. I can't speak as an atheist because I was never an atheist because if I was, I would still be one - No True Scotsman.

Likewise, I can't speak on behalf of atheists because I'm not one... no matter how much I learn or how much I'm around them... I will always be ignorant because being an atheist and having an atheistic point of view is unobtainable for me; therefore, I can never give an accurate answer.

I mean... I know my wife well... I could answer for her and tell you what she's thinking, and she would probably vouch for it... BUT, I could never 100% be correct in what she is thinking or her point of view because I am not her and will never be her.

What do y'all think?
Point 1 is No True Scotsman. Point 2 is a "therefore" following point 1. So the bulk of this is No True Scotsman to which I would point out, by that line of thinking, nobody can really be a "true Christian". Anyone can possibly lose their faith. Before they do, they are a "true Christian" presumably, but after they are not a "true Christian" and supposedly really never were. But the before and after can't both be true. Consider

Anyone who believes in a Christian faith is a true Christian regardless of whether that faith lasts or they eventually come to their senses lose that faith.

I would say, someone can accurately speak on behalf of someone else in any situation as long as they have the proper education. There are atheists who can speak on behalf of a Christian with more education and accuracy than some people who still call themselves a Christian and vice versa.

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2012, 05:19 AM
RE: Speaking on behalf - appropriate, correct?
I have a different way of seeing this. I for one like to know my enemies better than they know me. I am well aware of how the crazy theists out there think. I have to in order to shut down their arguments. I was never a theist and will admit that outright. That being said, there are people out there like Matt Dillahunty and Seth Andrews that I believe were absolutely believers and by believer, I mean the bat shit crazy kind. I trust them when they say they know how theists think. Just like if they were to become believers again, they would know how we atheists think. Though I have no idea why they would go back. I remember my parents and the church I grew up in trying to indoctrinate me, but I asked too many difficult questions and they gave up. I can see how upset my wife gets whenever I come up with a good argument that makes her question her beliefs. I know if she reads this, she will say that she doesn't question them. I can tell though that she does. If I really come up with a good point that I can verify by showing her, she gets really pissed off and refuses to look. So when I say I know how theists think, you can take that to the bank. My wife is far from crazy and I can understand her reasoning, so I don't really push it. I also understand how the crazies think as well. Crazy christian/muslim leader = fake who likes making easy money crazy worshipper=crazy person that actually believes this shit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2012, 06:30 AM
RE: Speaking on behalf - appropriate, correct?
(24-12-2012 05:19 AM)Birdguy1979 Wrote:  Crazy christian/muslim leader = fake who likes making easy money crazy worshipper=crazy person that actually believes this shit.

This last line suggests what you didn't outright state in your post but hinted at it throughout -- that you believe that *all* theists are crazy -- because you think it takes a "crazy person" to "actually believe this shit". This is a stereotype and just a stereotype. It isn't true about all theists because it isn't true by definition. KC is just one example of a theist who is not only not crazy but also not irrational. It wasn't true about me when I was a Christian (the crazy part -- I'm pretty sure I was irrational).

Your evidence that you "understand theists" is pretty weak, too. You believe that you understand them because you argue with them, and also because you "must understand them" in order to be able to win them over in debate. Do you win them over with debate? I'm fairly certain that if you're calling them crazy to their faces, you're not successful in convincing them that they're wrong.

I don't believe that you have to understand theists' point-of-view in order to win debates, but it certainly helps. Thinking that their belief stems from being crazy probably doesn't help; how can one cure the condition if one has misdiagnosed it?

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2012, 06:53 AM
RE: Speaking on behalf - appropriate, correct?
(24-12-2012 06:30 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(24-12-2012 05:19 AM)Birdguy1979 Wrote:  Crazy christian/muslim leader = fake who likes making easy money crazy worshipper=crazy person that actually believes this shit.


This last line suggests what you didn't outright state in your post but hinted at it throughout -- that you believe that *all* theists are crazy -- because you think it takes a "crazy person" to "actually believe this shit". This is a stereotype and just a stereotype. It isn't true about all theists because it isn't true by definition. KC is just one example of a theist who is not only not crazy but also not irrational. It wasn't true about me when I was a Christian (the crazy part -- I'm pretty sure I was irrational).

Your evidence that you "understand theists" is pretty weak, too. You believe that you understand them because you argue with them, and also because you "must understand them" in order to be able to win them over in debate. Do you win them over with debate? I'm fairly certain that if you're calling them crazy to their faces, you're not successful in convincing them that they're wrong.

I don't believe that you have to understand theists' point-of-view in order to win debates, but it certainly helps. Thinking that their belief stems from being crazy probably doesn't help; how can one cure the condition if one has misdiagnosed it?


I am not implying that all theists are crazy. I am talking about the bat shit crazy like westoro baptist church. Their leader is probably one at least modestly wealthy guy. Their followers are nuts and probably don't have much money. Even if they have money, their leader is getting rich off of indoctrination, manipulation, and yes the stupid or crazy. My wife is not crazy. She shares many beliefs that I have as far as morals and certain other things. I also know how she believes what she does.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Birdguy1979's post
24-12-2012, 08:12 AM
RE: Speaking on behalf - appropriate, correct?
I think a person has to choose his battles. And I go for minimal destructive force. I am kind of an all-encompassing environmentalist, that is; when I think of environment, it covers a lot of stuff, not just the physical. I don't want to damage my environment by arguing or making a fuss over something that is going to become insignificant in the end. So I will not debate atheism with, for example, an old, set-in-his-ways man, even if he starts it. My external/internal environment will be worse off for the experience, so will his, and the outcome of the debate will probably be meaningless. I will debate some aggressive person if he states something erroneous about religion, or atheism, assuming I have the time. I do not mind a debate. I have been told I am bound for hell more than once.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Katiegal's post
24-12-2012, 11:19 AM
RE: Speaking on behalf - appropriate, correct?
(24-12-2012 08:12 AM)Katiegal Wrote:  ...when I think of environment, it covers a lot of stuff, not just the physical. I don't want to damage my environment by arguing or making a fuss over something that is going to become insignificant in the end.

Noise pollution? Perhaps you're right. I agree that one has to pick his or her battles, but we don't all place the same amount of significance on each battle. I thought it was pretty stupid when American Atheists battled to put up a monument of their own alongside the "crossbeam cross" at the 911 memorial, but there were a lot of atheists who cared more about that than anything else at the time.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: