Faith, Judgement, Hate, Love, Ideas, Issues.

[Lovelife090994]

Lately with all the trouble being caused by so many people it's a wonder how anything gets done. Between the US and Russia with Russia's new law on no homosexual propaganda in front of minors, to Uganda's newly signed bill on homosexuality and now the US in Arizona with their new law it is crazy and bad. I fear that if this stuff keeps up and usually in religion moreso Christianity's name pretty soon people are going to start getting flat out enraged and violent towards Christians.

True, there are some terrible people out there who happen to call themselves Christian. True, many other religions and their more religious followers have never agreed on Christianity. But with more bad things happening or bad things being justified by Christians and the Bible when the vast majority are not like that, what will happen? People already have a negative view of Christians and Christianity with the radical few being th loudest and the peaceful many usually not wanting to get involved in the debates. No one has to like Christians or out beliefs but it scares me how angry some are at Christians as a whole. Pretty soon you'll see attacks in more churchs because more and more are tired of the "justified beliefs" of radical Christians and that is where innovent victims get caught in the web.

Now before one of you goes, "But all Christians are scum," or, "Christians are taking my rights," consider how many times Christianity has been split and had so much dumped on it or done in it's name when the doing was hate when hate and God do not mix and people take it as so anyway. Now I cannot make all the flaws in the Bible or wrongs of Christianity go away but I can make a suggestion. Why don't we just not stereotype so quick or put all in a box? Wouldn't it be easier to just silence the radicalism or ignore at a point? But ignoring is unrealistic it seems. I understand, there are some bad Christians out there, but there are also bad people out there too. In America while a majority of people would tell you they are Christian and while a majority of that group is very nice and helpful those people typically are not the ones speaking out against Christians trying to justify hate with the Bible. Point is most good Christians would rather not get involved. And who can blame them really? But with more bad deeds being done in the name of the Christian faith with a blind eye to most of the good at this rate Christians really are going to be more persecuted and killed as the Bible said so.

And while many would count the Bible as fiction before they talk ill on another faith most Christians do not care, but the radicals of course being the loudest regardless of faith are always the first to shout then insult, then comes stereotypes, bad names, fragile tensions, and all other sorts of chaos. I am not asking for anything. I know that in this crazy world there will always be radicals and Christians as others will be blamed for much or used as an excuse to many things leaving others to say why religion is so flawed. But, I would like to think that in some raw way we could at least get along. But I digress. I guess not. First you have the louder groups against homosexuality and the louder groups against those against homosexuality calling all now labeled "homophobic" and "bigot" as "Christian."

So now a religion that was of peace is now becoming more synonomous to hate? Never a good thing when something of good is made out to be bad or corrupted. But one can't change this fact. Even more distrubing is if you are a Christian but more quiet on most issues and that one time you say "God bless you" at a sneeze and the person curses you out. Hmm, never a good thing. Honestly I wish things were different. So many are quick to judge people especially to put people in a box and other things. So many are also quick to say that all of this group or another are hateful. True, many groups have a tarnished and hateful past and present but this may be due to the idea that all things human can be corrupted including religion and faith which give some solace.

But again, I digress and will take my feelings elsewhere. Maybe I am too peaceful, too blind by naivete intentions and wishes. Maybe I am just as bad as some others or am what others label me as. And maybe, just maybe that is how all are, the way people look at us but with a filter over that being what we believe. I admit the title is weird but I was just trying to find something that encompassed most in this passage.

What are your thoughts on these scenarios and ideas and others like it? And no, do not go into insults and arguments. I trust we being human can quell our barbs for a few responses, yes? Although maybe a thread asking opinions doesn't fit here as is...

[Karkat]

Ah, no, I agree with you on a lot. I personally think that those who attack any member of a religion because of what the religion as an organization or because of what a member of that religion (that is not the person at hand) has done, they're absolutely a hypocrite. By definition. You are literally attacking an innocent person because of your illogical association with everyone in their religion attacking innocent people. You're projecting your justified anger on an innocent bystander, making your actions UNjustified, and irrational.

It's sad that there are so many out there who preach equality but hate some people so bitterly for stereotypes and their own prejudice because it's the popular thing to do. (I personally can't stand most liberals for this reason. They're actually using the same mechanics as holier-than-thou religious people are, by trying to tell you that if you do not believe what they believe or wish to object to their opinion, you're a horrible person.)

The best thing you can do is know that by maintaining a calm, composed attitude towards others until you have VALID reason to feel otherwise, you're in the right. You're doing the best thing you CAN do, simply because radicals are closed-minded and hateful.

[Miserabilia]

Once again;
I don't actualy think that

All X are Y.

I just think that any religion can be used as a motive for terrible things.
Having no religion shows you for what your ideas really are, and makes it harder for people with terrible ideas to get lots of followers.
This is the reason I am atheist and do not support religion.

[Karkat]

Once again;
I don't actualy think that

All X are Y.

I just think that any religion can be used as a motive for terrible things.
Having no religion shows you for what your ideas really are, and makes it harder for people with terrible ideas to get lots of followers.
This is the reason I am atheist and do not support religion.

And atheists aren't stigmatized? Are you kidding me? If anything, atheists are branded even more so as being ignorant lunks than religious people. A lot of atheists are irrational, egotistic, jerks, sadly. Just like a lot of religious people are ignorant, bigoted, "you'll go to hell because I'm better than you" shamers. I know quite a few nice ones. Heck, most of my friends are either atheist (gnostic) or agnostic atheists. But that doesn't mean that atheism doesn't have a stereotype.

I heavily disagree with the statement that having no religion shows you for what your ideas are. You can be labeled for anything. You have to overcome that label. You don't just ignore the label because you think something is a certain way. Life doesn't work that way- the label will still exist because society is filled with a bunch of idiots. You have to OVERCOME the label, that's the point. Being without a religion by itself doesn't make you anything special, you always have to prove yourself.

I agree wholeheartedly that religion can and has been used for terrible things, but I'm against anti-religion. People should be free to worship if and how they find necessary if it doesn't hurt anyone else. I believe that religion should be deemphasized, but not eliminated. That's like banning straight people from getting married because of homophobes, or euthanizing orphans because there are bad foster parents and adoptive parents out there. You're trying to get rid of a problem that isn't always a problem. You're essentially cutting off a limb because it's broken when you could've put it in a cast. That's literally the basic definition of radicalism.

[Lovelife090994]

Once again;
I don't actualy think that

All X are Y.

I just think that any religion can be used as a motive for terrible things.
Having no religion shows you for what your ideas really are, and makes it harder for people with terrible ideas to get lots of followers.
This is the reason I am atheist and do not support religion.

Atheists are judged too, but the idea that being atheist makes one special is just as bad as the religious holier-than-thou. Being against all religion helps no sense because not all who are religious are bad. Being atheist doesn't show all you stand for just as being religious doesn't show all you stand for. Many bad ideas and cults have had and do have a lot of followers.

[Harry Smith]

When Christians stand up for full marriage equality then they'll get my full respect.

[Lovelife090994]

When Christians stand up for full marriage equality then they'll get my full respect.

Um, you do realize that the day when ALL self-proclaimed Christians do that may never come? In Christianity homosexuality is seen as a sin and while Christians do not hate the homosexual we can't support the act of homosexuality which includes gay marriage. Your comment is like me saying I'll respect atheists when all respect me. Never going to happen. Someone will always disagree or be silent but that does not mean to disrespect someone. I am shocked you said that because it speaks volumes on youthat are not even worth publishing nor shelving in even the lower libraries. I understand that you may not like Christians or Christianity, but to blame all Christians for the ideas of few is bad. Would you disrespect a person wearing a cross necklace even if they are not Christian but respect Christians? Would you listen to a Christian in need? it doesn't sound like it. A person's religion should not matter to you.

If you want the world to change you have to make a change and it begins with how you see people. Again, no one asked you to like anyone but at least respect the passerby when you meet. Most Christians are loving as most other people are, they just don't say much and when they speak out against the bad things no one listens to us and just judges us on the louder radical few. Just don't judge books by their cover Harry. I'll be praying for you. Who knows? I'm Christian but maybe if we met in real life we could be friends.

[AlexOnToast]

I can respect people who are of a religion, I just often don't respect the religion itself because of the views it can often instill among people that cause them to

That doesnt mean I that I go around pre-judging people based on what they believe. If you are a good person and have good morals and good intentions, then I respect you. And, if your beliefs do not contradict basic human rights, eg oppose marriage equality, personal choices or whatever, then I have no problems.

It just so happens to be, however, that there are people who hold beliefs that do contradict equality and fairness, and I don't think other people should respect those beliefs because those beliefs don't respect other people.

In short, I respect beliefs so long as they aren't asshole beliefs, which some of them are.

[Harry Smith]

Um, you do realize that the day when ALL self-proclaimed Christians do that may never come? In Christianity homosexuality is seen as a sin and while Christians do not hate the homosexual we can't support the act of homosexuality which includes gay marriage. Your comment is like me saying I'll respect atheists when all respect me. Never going to happen. Someone will always disagree or be silent but that does not mean to disrespect someone. I am shocked you said that because it speaks volumes on youthat are not even worth publishing nor shelving in even the lower libraries. I understand that you may not like Christians or Christianity, but to blame all Christians for the ideas of few is bad. Would you disrespect a person wearing a cross necklace even if they are not Christian but respect Christians? Would you listen to a Christian in need? it doesn't sound like it. A person's religion should not matter to you.

If you want the world to change you have to make a change and it begins with how you see people. Again, no one asked you to like anyone but at least respect the passerby when you meet. Most Christians are loving as most other people are, they just don't say much and when they speak out against the bad things no one listens to us and just judges us on the louder radical few. Just don't judge books by their cover Harry. I'll be praying for you. Who knows? I'm Christian but maybe if we met in real life we could be friends.

That's the thing-I'd never deny a christian the same rights that I have-I don't care what God you pray for-I'd hope you don't care who I sleep with.

It's not the ideas of the few-the vast majority of Christians are opposed to gay marriage

[Miserabilia]

And atheists aren't stigmatized? Are you kidding me? If anything, atheists are branded even more so as being ignorant lunks than religious people. A lot of atheists are irrational, egotistic, jerks, sadly. Just like a lot of religious people are ignorant, bigoted, "you'll go to hell because I'm better than you" shamers. I know quite a few nice ones. Heck, most of my friends are either atheist (gnostic) or agnostic atheists. But that doesn't mean that atheism doesn't have a stereotype.

I heavily disagree with the statement that having no religion shows you for what your ideas are. You can be labeled for anything. You have to overcome that label. You don't just ignore the label because you think something is a certain way. Life doesn't work that way- the label will still exist because society is filled with a bunch of idiots. You have to OVERCOME the label, that's the point. Being without a religion by itself doesn't make you anything special, you always have to prove yourself.

I agree wholeheartedly that religion can and has been used for terrible things, but I'm against anti-religion. People should be free to worship if and how they find necessary if it doesn't hurt anyone else. I believe that religion should be deemphasized, but not eliminated. That's like banning straight people from getting married because of homophobes, or euthanizing orphans because there are bad foster parents and adoptive parents out there. You're trying to get rid of a problem that isn't always a problem. You're essentially cutting off a limb because it's broken when you could've put it in a cast. That's literally the basic definition of radicalism.

And atheists aren't stigmatized?

I think you misread my post, I never said christianity is stigmatized.
I said religion can be used as motive.

But that doesn't mean that atheism doesn't have a stereotype.

Yes it does.
"atheism" is not even a real beleif.
It's just that religion became so important to us that we decided to brand non-religious people;
the "-ism" is actual incorrect.

If we all had to say what we don't beleive we are also all aunicornists, aflyingspaghettimonsterists, etc.

You can't brand atheists with a stereotype, since atheism is the original state and not a beleif.


I heavily disagree with the statement that having no religion shows you for what your ideas are. You can be labeled for anything. You have to overcome that label. You don't just ignore the label because you think something is a certain way. Life doesn't work that way- the label will still exist because society is filled with a bunch of idiots. You have to OVERCOME the label, that's the point. Being without a religion by itself doesn't make you anything special, you always have to prove yourself.

So? I don't follow a religion, therefore i am labeled "atheist" to make things easier. I don't see the point of that whole passage :P

I agree wholeheartedly that religion can and has been used for terrible things, but I'm against anti-religion. People should be free to worship if and how they find necessary if it doesn't hurt anyone else.
They should be, but it can and will always be used as motive to do things and gain followers.
I only think the next logical step in human society is having no religion - I'm not saying we should just get rid of religion, or kill religious people; I think it's a slow proces that is already happening. (And it is).

Atheists are judged too, but the idea that being atheist makes one special is just as bad as the religious holier-than-thou. Being against all religion helps no sense because not all who are religious are bad. Being atheist doesn't show all you stand for just as being religious doesn't show all you stand for. Many bad ideas and cults have had and do have a lot of followers.

I'm sorry, but seriously, when did I ever say being atheist makes you "special".
I'm actualt repeatingly saying the opposite;
atheist is the normal state.
It's not even a true "ism".

Being against all religion helps no sense because not all who are religious are bad.

Your standard pattern in each post is so obvious it's getting hilarious.
You can't just take something someone says and place "all" in it a few times.

i never, NEVER, said all who are religious are bad.
Your argument is repetitive, and it fails.
Being atheist doesn't show all you stand for just as being religious doesn't show all you stand for.

What planet are you on? What text did you read? Did I say it did?
No, I didn't.
Many bad ideas and cults have had and do have a lot of followers.
Yup.

[Karkat]

I think you misread my post, I never said christianity is stigmatized.
I said religion can be used as motive.



Yes it does.
"atheism" is not even a real beleif.
It's just that religion became so important to us that we decided to brand non-religious people;
the "-ism" is actual incorrect.

If we all had to say what we don't beleive we are also all aunicornists, aflyingspaghettimonsterists, etc.

You can't brand atheists with a stereotype, since atheism is the original state and not a beleif.



So? I don't follow a religion, therefore i am labeled "atheist" to make things easier. I don't see the point of that whole passage :P


They should be, but it can and will always be used as motive to do things and gain followers.
I only think the next logical step in human society is having no religion - I'm not saying we should just get rid of religion, or kill religious people; I think it's a slow proces that is already happening. (And it is).



I'm sorry, but seriously, when did I ever say being atheist makes you "special".
I'm actualt repeatingly saying the opposite;
atheist is the normal state.
It's not even a true "ism".



Your standard pattern in each post is so obvious it's getting hilarious.
You can't just take something someone says and place "all" in it a few times.

i never, NEVER, said all who are religious are bad.
Your argument is repetitive, and it fails.


What planet are you on? What text did you read? Did I say it did?
No, I didn't.

Yup.

You did seem to imply that atheists are somehow special snowflakes ("Having no religion shows you for what your ideas really are" Implying that being religious does not, which would make atheists special by definition.
"spe·cial
adjective
1.better, greater, or otherwise different from what is usual.")
and religion just makes you automatically ignorant.

Also, that would make you antitheist- and antitheism is not default.

I felt like you were backpedaling a bit in your rebuttal. Feeling the need to not only contradict yourself, but use my words to both support your argument, AND make me look like the bad guy here. ("It's just that religion became so important to us that we decided to brand non-religious people;", "You can't brand atheists with a stereotype, since atheism is the original state and not a beleif." You absolutely can brand the original state of something. It's been done. If you try to tell me that people do not have a first impression when the word "atheist" is mentioned, you clearly have not gotten out enough. Is it unfortunate? Yes. Does it happen? Absolutely. Aside from that, you go from agreeing with me when it suits you to acting like I'm a moron when it suits you. You don't really argue against my argument- you argue against me. That's arguably less effective than repetition. Repetition can be made to make a point clearer or highlight a point. Arguing against a person and not their argument is called holding a grudge.)

You EXPAND on a lot of what would be almost impossible to get out of your original post. You CANNOT defend the original post with information one would need ESP to tie in. That's hardly an effective argument. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, saying that my argument is ineffective when yours is just as bad. Including more information to emphasize original points made is EXTREMELY different from adding in expansions of your original argument to backpedal.

This:

"...but it can and will always be used as motive to do things and gain followers."



Does not equal this:

"I just think that any religion can be used as a motive for terrible things."

Those are not the same statements. Your original statement implies flexibility in belief or reasoning, the second does not.

This:

"I only think the next logical step in human society is having no religion - I'm not saying we should just get rid of religion, or kill religious people; I think it's a slow proces that is already happening. (And it is)."

Is kind of a jump from this:

"This is the reason I am atheist and do not support religion."

True, stating that you are against religion is a little different from not supporting it, however, vague statements are open to a lot of inference. I almost think for your sake it would've been better to expand in the first post.

It's a little bit of a biased leap, but "not support" seems to mean "anti" with a lot of people. Does that mean this is true? No. However, judgement is made based off of impression- reality has two levels, the way I see it. General perception is a reality. It's a false reality, but the fact that people will generally perceive things one way or another is a reality. Then you have what is actually true.

In other words, you have reality as the way things are generally known to be true, and then you have reality as what is actually a fact. The second is less tangible, because humans don't have the capability to be all-knowing.

Trying to argue that 'you're wrong because this is what I REALLY meant' is kind of ineffective, because how the hell was I supposed to know.

Also, here's the definition of ism for reference:

"-ism noun suffix
: the act, practice, or process of doing something

: behavior like that of a specified kind of person or thing"

Saying that atheism "isn't a true ism" is like saying that default means void of characteristic or specific behavior- being default actually means that something is in the absence of something else. Atheists would be without the belief of a higher power. This would mean the behavior differs from that of theists. That would mean that atheists have specific behavior in the fact that theists exist. Be is a verb, and you could probably say it's the default verb. It's a default, because the realm of nonexistence is infinite. Even nonexistent things exist as ideas, even if they aren't corporeal. Be has characteristic and behavior. Atheism has characteristic and behavior- even if it's only because implying the opposite is kind of a paradox. So arguably that's a fault of language. Atheism is a valid word, even if the idea behind it is arguable. That's a fault of language, and really has nothing to do with me or my argument at all. It's irrelevant.

Also, I'd like to point out that language is not an absolute. It is not a thing that is just the same from person to person. Language relies upon:

-perspective
-perception
-interpretation

Language relies upon how a person has been taught to understand said language. It also relies upon a person's experience, personality, personal take on the world, etc. Language varies from person to person because perspective varies from person to person. It relies on a person's perspective.

Then, we have perception. The individual reads or hears language, then they perceive it one way or another. Perception varies due to perspective. If an individual perceives wrong, it could be due to context, lack of knowledge on either the individual's behalf or on the behalf of whoever said/wrote what the individual has taken in (such as using words in the wrong context, etc.), miscommunication, inaccurate portrayal through language, etc. The list goes on.

THEN, the individual has taken in what has been said, and it is processed due to their perspective and how they perceive it. Now they interpret it based on context, perspective, etc.

So the original meaning of something goes through about seven different processes before it can be responded to.

1. The initial thought
2. The thinker's perspective (though this is arguably just an extension of 1.)
3. The thinker's perception of the language they wish to communicate in
4. Their linguistic interpretation of their original idea.

Then

5. The audience's perspective
6. The audience's perception of the idea
7. Their interpretation of the original idea

Then comes the response.

Communication is flawed, due to the fact that one thing will literally mean something entirely different to each individual who hears it (etc) due to the above. Perception is the real kicker though- if everyone experienced the exact same thing, things would be a little different. Because perspective influences perception and interpretation. Differences in perspective make everything wonky.

So saying that you never said something is really kind of ineffective, because your actual words are subjective.

Does that mean that my initial perception and interpretation are correct in the literal sense? Is what I got out of it exactly what you put into it? No. That's impossible.

Expecting me to get your idea based off of your words and saying that I'm wrong because what you perceived and interpreted my words to mean did not match up with what you actually meant isn't very effective. In a perfect world, arguments would be black and white, they're not. This is an issue of reality vs idealism. You have to get used to the fact that interpretation is a thing in order to have arguments.

I mean, essentially, debate without solution is invalid. It has no purpose unless all parties go in with open minds willing to learn something or potentially change their minds. THIS in essence has no purpose. Debate is technically ineffective in itself when the ends are not open, because that's called an argument. However, it's impossible to know anyone else's true intentions but your own. Perception ≠ reality. (It's reality in the sense that it's what is held to be evident, however it is not what is actually true, because it's literally impossible to know for sure.)

So technical reality aside (because thinking about technical reality can give one a headache and/or existential crisis), no, you did not necessarily say a particular thing. However, subtext is just as important as text in terms of language. Language can't exist without subtext, because subtext is how one navigates language. You can't say "only read what's actually there", because language doesn't work that way.

Arguably no one's argument will ever be effective because language is not concrete. Just like you can have an ineffective argument by terms of logic, and it will be a perfectly effective argument because the point will be (relatively) gotten across to whom it needs to be gotten across to. Just like an effective argument is ineffective if the point is not gotten across.

We can stand here and try to correct each other all day, but technically neither of us are right where we stand, and at this point our only options are to only backpedal further. Your choice, I guess.

[Lovelife090994]

That's the thing-I'd never deny a christian the same rights that I have-I don't care what God you pray for-I'd hope you don't care who I sleep with.

It's not the ideas of the few-the vast majority of Christians are opposed to gay marriage

I sense a bit of animosity there but at least you and I can agree on something. I care not whom anyone sleeps with, unless of course that person is a danger to minors, then I care for the minors.

[Miserabilia]

You did seem to imply that atheists are somehow special snowflakes ("Having no religion shows you for what your ideas really are" Implying that being religious does not, which would make atheists special by definition.
"spe·cial
adjective
1.better, greater, or otherwise different from what is usual.")
and religion just makes you automatically ignorant.

Also, that would make you antitheist- and antitheism is not default.

I felt like you were backpedaling a bit in your rebuttal. Feeling the need to not only contradict yourself, but use my words to both support your argument, AND make me look like the bad guy here. ("It's just that religion became so important to us that we decided to brand non-religious people;", "You can't brand atheists with a stereotype, since atheism is the original state and not a beleif." You absolutely can brand the original state of something. It's been done. If you try to tell me that people do not have a first impression when the word "atheist" is mentioned, you clearly have not gotten out enough. Is it unfortunate? Yes. Does it happen? Absolutely. Aside from that, you go from agreeing with me when it suits you to acting like I'm a moron when it suits you. You don't really argue against my argument- you argue against me. That's arguably less effective than repetition. Repetition can be made to make a point clearer or highlight a point. Arguing against a person and not their argument is called holding a grudge.)

You EXPAND on a lot of what would be almost impossible to get out of your original post. You CANNOT defend the original post with information one would need ESP to tie in. That's hardly an effective argument. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, saying that my argument is ineffective when yours is just as bad. Including more information to emphasize original points made is EXTREMELY different from adding in expansions of your original argument to backpedal.

This:

"...but it can and will always be used as motive to do things and gain followers."



Does not equal this:

"I just think that any religion can be used as a motive for terrible things."

Those are not the same statements. Your original statement implies flexibility in belief or reasoning, the second does not.

This:

"I only think the next logical step in human society is having no religion - I'm not saying we should just get rid of religion, or kill religious people; I think it's a slow proces that is already happening. (And it is)."

Is kind of a jump from this:

"This is the reason I am atheist and do not support religion."

True, stating that you are against religion is a little different from not supporting it, however, vague statements are open to a lot of inference. I almost think for your sake it would've been better to expand in the first post.

It's a little bit of a biased leap, but "not support" seems to mean "anti" with a lot of people. Does that mean this is true? No. However, judgement is made based off of impression- reality has two levels, the way I see it. General perception is a reality. It's a false reality, but the fact that people will generally perceive things one way or another is a reality. Then you have what is actually true.

In other words, you have reality as the way things are generally known to be true, and then you have reality as what is actually a fact. The second is less tangible, because humans don't have the capability to be all-knowing.

Trying to argue that 'you're wrong because this is what I REALLY meant' is kind of ineffective, because how the hell was I supposed to know.

Also, here's the definition of ism for reference:

"-ism noun suffix
: the act, practice, or process of doing something

: behavior like that of a specified kind of person or thing"

Saying that atheism "isn't a true ism" is like saying that default means void of characteristic or specific behavior- being default actually means that something is in the absence of something else. Atheists would be without the belief of a higher power. This would mean the behavior differs from that of theists. That would mean that atheists have specific behavior in the fact that theists exist. Be is a verb, and you could probably say it's the default verb. It's a default, because the realm of nonexistence is infinite. Even nonexistent things exist as ideas, even if they aren't corporeal. Be has characteristic and behavior. Atheism has characteristic and behavior- even if it's only because implying the opposite is kind of a paradox. So arguably that's a fault of language. Atheism is a valid word, even if the idea behind it is arguable. That's a fault of language, and really has nothing to do with me or my argument at all. It's irrelevant.

Also, I'd like to point out that language is not an absolute. It is not a thing that is just the same from person to person. Language relies upon:

-perspective
-perception
-interpretation

Language relies upon how a person has been taught to understand said language. It also relies upon a person's experience, personality, personal take on the world, etc. Language varies from person to person because perspective varies from person to person. It relies on a person's perspective.

Then, we have perception. The individual reads or hears language, then they perceive it one way or another. Perception varies due to perspective. If an individual perceives wrong, it could be due to context, lack of knowledge on either the individual's behalf or on the behalf of whoever said/wrote what the individual has taken in (such as using words in the wrong context, etc.), miscommunication, inaccurate portrayal through language, etc. The list goes on.

THEN, the individual has taken in what has been said, and it is processed due to their perspective and how they perceive it. Now they interpret it based on context, perspective, etc.

So the original meaning of something goes through about seven different processes before it can be responded to.

1. The initial thought
2. The thinker's perspective (though this is arguably just an extension of 1.)
3. The thinker's perception of the language they wish to communicate in
4. Their linguistic interpretation of their original idea.

Then

5. The audience's perspective
6. The audience's perception of the idea
7. Their interpretation of the original idea

Then comes the response.

Communication is flawed, due to the fact that one thing will literally mean something entirely different to each individual who hears it (etc) due to the above. Perception is the real kicker though- if everyone experienced the exact same thing, things would be a little different. Because perspective influences perception and interpretation. Differences in perspective make everything wonky.

So saying that you never said something is really kind of ineffective, because your actual words are subjective.

Does that mean that my initial perception and interpretation are correct in the literal sense? Is what I got out of it exactly what you put into it? No. That's impossible.

Expecting me to get your idea based off of your words and saying that I'm wrong because what you perceived and interpreted my words to mean did not match up with what you actually meant isn't very effective. In a perfect world, arguments would be black and white, they're not. This is an issue of reality vs idealism. You have to get used to the fact that interpretation is a thing in order to have arguments.

I mean, essentially, debate without solution is invalid. It has no purpose unless all parties go in with open minds willing to learn something or potentially change their minds. THIS in essence has no purpose. Debate is technically ineffective in itself when the ends are not open, because that's called an argument. However, it's impossible to know anyone else's true intentions but your own. Perception ≠ reality. (It's reality in the sense that it's what is held to be evident, however it is not what is actually true, because it's literally impossible to know for sure.)

So technical reality aside (because thinking about technical reality can give one a headache and/or existential crisis), no, you did not necessarily say a particular thing. However, subtext is just as important as text in terms of language. Language can't exist without subtext, because subtext is how one navigates language. You can't say "only read what's actually there", because language doesn't work that way.

Arguably no one's argument will ever be effective because language is not concrete. Just like you can have an ineffective argument by terms of logic, and it will be a perfectly effective argument because the point will be (relatively) gotten across to whom it needs to be gotten across to. Just like an effective argument is ineffective if the point is not gotten across.

We can stand here and try to correct each other all day, but technically neither of us are right where we stand, and at this point our only options are to only backpedal further. Your choice, I guess.

Okay, let me start of by saying that I actualy wrote a really elaborated response, but VT dooped and it was lots forever )':

So sorry for this really bad and hasy response, but I'll try to rewrite it kind of... sigh...

Okay, so, first of all, you are looking way deep into my posts;
all I'm trying to say is you can't put certain stamps on atheism by defenition (I mean, you can, but it's a fallacy)

Also, I know that I left out alot of information that I should have added earlier (Because indeed, how the h*l were you supposed to know?)
but that's why I respond, isn't it?
I'm adding information so you don't get the wrong idea of what I mean with the small collection of words that is my response.

And,yes, words;
look at the definition of "special"

better, greater, or otherwise different from what is usual

What is USUAL. Atheism is the default state, therefore USUAL.
I am not giving it SPECIAL assignments; I am descrbing people in their original state.
(Humans with legs can run. Does that make them special because there are also humans without legs that can't?)

And no, I'm not holding a grudge against anyone. (Why would I have a grudge against you?)
I'm just correcting and replying and debating.

In your (Quite eleborate :P ) response, you had a whole section on, well, words and language.
But I think you are getting the wrong idea of epistomology.

You see, we ascribe words to things, in order to communicate.
We may call the same thing different words. So in that way, language is subjective.

But we also set definitions; and things can be true BY DEFINITION.

For example;

"Christians beleive in god." - Is true by definition;
the word christian is there because it describes people that beleive in god.

"All bachelors are unmarried."- Is true by definition;
the word bachelor is there to describe unmarried men.

So, in that way, language can be pretty solid.
There is also subjective language;

"This house is beautiful."- Is neither true nor wrong by definition;
the word beautiful describes the way the speaker thinks of the subject.

BUT;

"I hate ice cream."- Is TRUE, because as listener you have to assume that the speaker s being honest in the sentence,
(Or the opposite when for example sarcastic), you have to assume they are speaking the truth about their subjective opinion.

These are all things WITHIN the sentences; you can't however bring out something that is true or false within,
and use it on the outside world.

For example:

"I hate ice cream."

Does not proove:

"Ice cream is made of my tears." or "Everyone hates ice cream."

We use these sets of rules to set definitions and truths.
It's what we use to communicate.
You can't just call each argument invalid because all definitions are subjective,
conclusion everything we say is gibberisch anyway, no.
For the sake of communication we set these rules.

Since I was talking about atheism and how the ism is actualy strange there,
what I say is true if it is true by definition.
You can't brand atheists with a "positive" property, only with a "negative" property.
(It's the reason there is an "a" before the "theist" part.)

For example:

"Atheists beleive that free will does not exist."- Is FALSE by the rules;

"Atheists don't beleive in Krishnu."- Is TRUE by the rules.

"Atheist' describes what someone is NOT, so you can only use it to describe what they are NOT,

(Atheists are not religious, atheists don't go to church, etc. etc.)


:yes::yes::yes:

[Karkat]

Okay, let me start of by saying that I actualy wrote a really elaborated response, but VT dooped and it was lots forever )':

So sorry for this really bad and hasy response, but I'll try to rewrite it kind of... sigh...

Okay, so, first of all, you are looking way deep into my posts;
all I'm trying to say is you can't put certain stamps on atheism by defenition (I mean, you can, but it's a fallacy)

Also, I know that I left out alot of information that I should have added earlier (Because indeed, how the h*l were you supposed to know?)
but that's why I respond, isn't it?
I'm adding information so you don't get the wrong idea of what I mean with the small collection of words that is my response.

And,yes, words;
look at the definition of "special"

better, greater, or otherwise different from what is usual

What is USUAL. Atheism is the default state, therefore USUAL.
I am not giving it SPECIAL assignments; I am descrbing people in their original state.
(Humans with legs can run. Does that make them special because there are also humans without legs that can't?)

And no, I'm not holding a grudge against anyone. (Why would I have a grudge against you?)
I'm just correcting and replying and debating.

In your (Quite eleborate :P ) response, you had a whole section on, well, words and language.
But I think you are getting the wrong idea of epistomology.

You see, we ascribe words to things, in order to communicate.
We may call the same thing different words. So in that way, language is subjective.

But we also set definitions; and things can be true BY DEFINITION.

For example;

"Christians beleive in god." - Is true by definition;
the word christian is there because it describes people that beleive in god.

"All bachelors are unmarried."- Is true by definition;
the word bachelor is there to describe unmarried men.

So, in that way, language can be pretty solid.
There is also subjective language;

"This house is beautiful."- Is neither true nor wrong by definition;
the word beautiful describes the way the speaker thinks of the subject.

BUT;

"I hate ice cream."- Is TRUE, because as listener you have to assume that the speaker s being honest in the sentence,
(Or the opposite when for example sarcastic), you have to assume they are speaking the truth about their subjective opinion.

These are all things WITHIN the sentences; you can't however bring out something that is true or false within,
and use it on the outside world.

For example:

"I hate ice cream."

Does not proove:

"Ice cream is made of my tears." or "Everyone hates ice cream."

We use these sets of rules to set definitions and truths.
It's what we use to communicate.
You can't just call each argument invalid because all definitions are subjective,
conclusion everything we say is gibberisch anyway, no.
For the sake of communication we set these rules.

Since I was talking about atheism and how the ism is actualy strange there,
what I say is true if it is true by definition.
You can't brand atheists with a "positive" property, only with a "negative" property.
(It's the reason there is an "a" before the "theist" part.)

For example:

"Atheists beleive that free will does not exist."- Is FALSE by the rules;

"Atheists don't beleive in Krishnu."- Is TRUE by the rules.

"Atheist' describes what someone is NOT, so you can only use it to describe what they are NOT,

(Atheists are not religious, atheists don't go to church, etc. etc.)


:yes::yes::yes:

(This is actually really ironic, because once again, I think you're getting the wrong idea of what I was trying to say.)

Ok, I agree with you for most of this.

-Yes, it's a fallacy, or really more of just a fault of language. I mean, once again "be" is the default for the most part. Which, that in itself is highly debatable because we don't really know what we don't know, and ideas exist as ideas, so even the nonexistent exists in a weird, sort of paradoxical way. Kind of like atheists have traits in a sort of paradoxical way, and the only reason that happens is because religion exists. Kind of like people who aren't anti-feminism, but aren't feminists have traits, but neither feminism nor anti-feminism are the default, but (I guess you could call them afeminists, lel. For lack of a better word.) have characteristics because the other two exist.

I mean, there are logical faults as well to be had, but in the case of atheism as a word, that's a language fault.

And as far as the language bit goes, I was referring more to opinion and idea vs fact. I mean, fact can STILL be perceived/interpreted incorrectly if the person who is doing the perceiving perceives the language incorrectly. (Such as confusing homonyms or forgetting/not knowing the definition of something, etc.)

However, ideas and opinions- the part of language that are not solid like fact is can be TOTALLY misconstrued. I mean, once again, they're not solid. That's where the 7 steps of batshit miscommunication come in. Everything goes to heck. Sometimes ideas will go from one person to the next, and they'll get the general concept, or even know what the exact words are, and the outcome will be positive.

But like, have you ever played telephone? It doesn't just get distorted from person to person, like each person is a step- it goes through a whole SLEW of steps from person to person, and THAT'S why telephone is so nuts.

So it was really my fault for not communicating that effectively, but here we go again with communication technically being flawed.

[Miserabilia]

(This is actually really ironic, because once again, I think you're getting the wrong idea of what I was trying to say.)

Ok, I agree with you for most of this.

-Yes, it's a fallacy, or really more of just a fault of language. I mean, once again "be" is the default for the most part. Which, that in itself is highly debatable because we don't really know what we don't know, and ideas exist as ideas, so even the nonexistent exists in a weird, sort of paradoxical way. Kind of like atheists have traits in a sort of paradoxical way, and the only reason that happens is because religion exists. Kind of like people who aren't anti-feminism, but aren't feminists have traits, but neither feminism nor anti-feminism are the default, but (I guess you could call them afeminists, lel. For lack of a better word.) have characteristics because the other two exist.

I mean, there are logical faults as well to be had, but in the case of atheism as a word, that's a language fault.

And as far as the language bit goes, I was referring more to opinion and idea vs fact. I mean, fact can STILL be perceived/interpreted incorrectly if the person who is doing the perceiving perceives the language incorrectly. (Such as confusing homonyms or forgetting/not knowing the definition of something, etc.)

However, ideas and opinions- the part of language that are not solid like fact is can be TOTALLY misconstrued. I mean, once again, they're not solid. That's where the 7 steps of batshit miscommunication come in. Everything goes to heck. Sometimes ideas will go from one person to the next, and they'll get the general concept, or even know what the exact words are, and the outcome will be positive.

But like, have you ever played telephone? It doesn't just get distorted from person to person, like each person is a step- it goes through a whole SLEW of steps from person to person, and THAT'S why telephone is so nuts.

So it was really my fault for not communicating that effectively, but here we go again with communication technically being flawed.

Well we can all aggree that "atheist" is basicly a fallacy of language :yeah:

Anyway,
the language thing, for the sake of communication we just set the rules (or axioms) of definition, and truth.
Simple things like;

X = Y
therefore, X = Y

and

All X = Y
Either some or all of Y = X

And ofcourse, communicating in threads with one response at the time works like cr*p anyway, communicatinon fails this way :P

So anyway.
Yea.
Good you didn't have to read my butthurt 6000 paragraph long response that got lost somewhere on the interwebz.

[Karkat]

Well we can all aggree that "atheist" is basicly a fallacy of language :yeah:

Anyway,
the language thing, for the sake of communication we just set the rules (or axioms) of definition, and truth.
Simple things like;

X = Y
therefore, X = Y

and

All X = Y
Either some or all of Y = X

And ofcourse, communicating in threads with one response at the time works like cr*p anyway, communicatinon fails this way :P

So anyway.
Yea.
Good you didn't have to read my butthurt 6000 paragraph long response that got lost somewhere on the interwebz.

Well opinion ≠ truth, so defining opinion with fact doesn't really work, therefore the miscommunications when opinions are in question. :P

Eh, regardless I like debating with you (more than SOME people) because you actually stick logic and reasoning into your arguments and try to CONTRIBUTE to the conversation rather than just mocking someone because you don't agree with them.

[Miserabilia]

Well opinion ≠ truth, so defining opinion with fact doesn't really work, therefore the miscommunications when opinions are in question. :P

Eh, regardless I like debating with you (more than SOME people) because you actually stick logic and reasoning into your arguments and try to CONTRIBUTE to the conversation rather than just mocking someone because you don't agree with them.

thanks! :)

It's what I'm here for :P

[The Trendy Wolf]

When Christians stand up for full marriage equality then they'll get my full respect.

To the most radical of Christians, the Bible is like the Constitution.

[Lovelife090994]

To the most radical of Christians, the Bible is like the Constitution.

And to most Christians we would rather be silent than protest.