I am here to tell you fellow sciforum-ers that I am biased. Yes, that's right. I admit it. I am totally biased. I weight every decision in light of Jesus and the gospels. I am totally biased against atheism and a sinful life. I have been guilty of avoiding things because they are atheistic. Or sinful. I have been guilty of closing my ears to atheistic arguments, or arguments of inveterate sinners. Or rejecting them outright simply because they were "godless", "heathens" or "sinners". I have avoided places where ungodly people "hang out". I have even been guilty of inviting others to choose my way of beliefs, as an alternative to their own. This offer has even come with my friendly assistance... I admit it... I HAVE tried to indoctrinate people. I have invited them to Church with the express purpose of trying to convert them. Yes, it is clear. I am biased. (This catharsis is wonderful) I feel so much better. Try it... ...or can you? -Mike
Why doesn't this surprise me? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well, I find it quite alright if you take somebody to your place of worship, be it a temple (Buddhist, Jewish, or otherwise), a shrine (shinto, paganism, or otherwise), a church (of any religion), a mosque, or any other sort of place of sacred worship, as long as the purpose is to teach them about your religion. Not to indoctrinate them, but to educate them. Tell them what your beliefs are, what you do at this place of worship, when, and its significance to your religion. I've had many fascinating journies like this to churches of all sorts of Christian sects, a mosque, and a Jewish temple (I will be happy to give anybody a tour of my Egoist shrine to self and explain why I am so great Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!), and they're always very enlightening. However, I've also had journies to places of worship where people's soul reason for inviting me was to indoctrinate me with their beliefs. Generally, these people I never saw the same way again, I didn't respect them the same amount or way (although almost the same, indoctrination is after all part of the beliefs of some), and I was completely unwilling to talk to them of religion from then on. I am a Cthulhuist, I believe that Cthulhu, part octopus, part winged dragon, is lying dead but dreaming in the depths at R'lyeh, and that he will soon arise and terrorise the world, eating all those who are not his cultists and leading his cultists to a paradise.
IMHO, I would say that keeping an open mind is good. It gets hard at times, but it will be good in the long run.
*Picks up phone* Elkimlaw, Mistress Lysandra's House of Perversion is on the phone - they say they have had to have security escort you off the premises numerous times. Sorry pal, that don't wash. P.S: They also say that the next time you stand outside yelling "Mistress Lysandra, huuuuurt meeeee" for half an hour, they will call the cops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Xev wrote: *Picks up phone* Elkimlaw, Mistress Lysandra's House of Perversion is on the phone - they say they have had to have security escort you off the premises numerous times. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Darn! I'm discovered. Burn the clothing and flush the evidence!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Xev wrote: They also say that the next time you stand outside yelling "Mistress Lysandra, huuuuurt meeeee" for half an hour, they will call the cops. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fair enough... I'll cut it down to 25 minutes. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! -Mike
I had an open mind... until I became convinced. Then, since I was convinced... I felt my mind close to certain other options. We're not so different in this regard I think. I still have an open mind about a host of things. We're not so different in this regard either, I think. BTW Thanks for responding Zero. -Mike
Re: Re: Bias ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GB-Gil Trans Global wrote: Well, I find it quite alright if you take somebody to your place of worship, be it a temple (Buddhist, Jewish, or otherwise), a shrine (shinto, paganism, or otherwise), a church (of any religion), a mosque, or any other sort of place of sacred worship, as long as the purpose is to teach them about your religion. Not to indoctrinate them, but to educate them. Tell them what your beliefs are, what you do at this place of worship, when, and its significance to your religion. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agreed. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GB-Gil Trans Global wrote: I've had many fascinating journies like this to churches of all sorts of Christian sects, a mosque, and a Jewish temple (I will be happy to give anybody a tour of my Egoist shrine to self and explain why I am so great Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!), and they're always very enlightening. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Great! You are the complete renaissance man! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GB-Gil Trans Global wrote: However, I've also had journies to places of worship where people's soul reason for inviting me was to indoctrinate me with their beliefs. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You don't know. Maybe they were just being nice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GB-Gil Trans Global wrote: Generally, these people I never saw the same way again, I didn't respect them the same amount or way (although almost the same, indoctrination is after all part of the beliefs of some), and I was completely unwilling to talk to them of religion from then on. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sounds mighty defensive... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GB-Gil Trans Global wrote: I am a Cthulhuist, I believe that Cthulhu, part octopus, part winged dragon, is lying dead but dreaming in the depths at R'lyeh, and that he will soon arise and terrorise the world, eating all those who are not his cultists and leading his cultists to a paradise. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cthulhu was some undigested red cabbage in the belly of H.P. Lovecraft. If I told you some of my nightmares, would you worship them too? What do Cthulhuists do at their church anyway? Sing a couple hymns, sacrifice two children and rape a virgin, then... straight on into the day's sermon: "#@#$# those $%@#$@@ Christians". Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! -Mike PS. Still... I am biased.
Mike: Mistress Lysandra says that 25 minutes is fine. Sublime Trigger: 'Cuz, you know, all athiests are evil people who are, like, constantly on the verge of suicide over their separation frm the loving God they KNOW really exists. *Xev wanders off to contemplate suicide and plan the next pot orgy*
Ekim, The term bias in the context you are using it essentially means prejudice against opposing or different views. This is also manifestly a practice of intolerance. Using atheism for example: You believe atheism promotes sinfulness or is directly sinful, and these are characteristics that you want to avoid, remove, or fight against. Therefore atheism is something to be shunned and despised. Tolerance would mean maintaining at least a neutral stance on the ideas of others. In a time when intolerance for the ideas of others is causing massive world tension then to actually encourage intolerance is more likely to make the situations much worse. I’d consider this morally bad. So in this context what good can come from your biased, prejudiced, and intolerant attitudes? And I mean the terms here in their technical sense and not as personal criticisms, since I believe my statement is an accurate observation of your characteristics. Cris
When a person looks at two (or more) sides of a particular issue, they must evaluate which of the sides seems to represent what they can determine to be the truth. In other words... they make a decision. Once the decision is made, every human becomes what is commonly called "biased". If some information comes to light that alters their original perception of the truth, then they must re-evaluate their original position. However, until this new information, not previously encountered, comes to light, an individual is comfortable with their position and therefore remains biased against certain other positions. If I told you the sky is green, you would be "biased" against that view. Right? It is therefore possible to remain reasonably open-minded while being biased against something you are convinced is wrong. I hope that was put forward clearly enough. You wrote that I am prejudiced and intolerant. You label me thus as if you are not these things. Do you not prejudge every Christian? Do you tolerate Christian thought? Of course I would expect you to put a negative slant on me, since you clearly are as biased as I am. -Mike
Ekim, I hope to make myself clear. Religion, to me, is a lost dream. There is no one up there to baby you when you fuck up. It's all up to you to get yourself out of the shit you got in. No sweet prayers, no rewards for faith in anything that's supposed to be more than 20 feet above your head (except maybe astronomyPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ), no emotionally moving divine intervention episodes. Cmon, wake up, the world is fucking harsh out there loaded with people all set to rape you and your stuff. No time for daydreams, kiddo. Now tell me that's not a cute idealistic philosophy on my part. I am really ashamed about my idealism, I should try and fix the damn thing. I like religion well enough when I get most of the bullshit out of the way. The basic principles (the non-bullshit parts ) there are quite good, and they advocate morality and good will. Also, just because religious people are stuck in a system of principles which consist of a few bits of gold mixed up in bullshit does not mean that they are not good people. I have a lot of friends who are religious, and we are perfectly fine with each other's beliefs. I value the person more than that person's set of beliefs. Whether he/she worships an omnipresent being or a tomato does not matter to me as long as that person stays out of my soul and do not touch my own beliefs. Sounds harsh, but y'know. Between friends, there is always an invisible line that should not be crossed. Ekim, that would mean I respect you as a person and an individual, but that does not mean I agree with your beliefs. I coudl be friends with your church's members, but not your church.
Ekim, No, that is your erroneous assumption. I have merely stated an observation; I have made no statement or implication concerning myself. This thread is a personal statement about you, and I assume you are offering your assertions as a topic for discussion, as is customary in this forum. The topic is about you not me. I think your choice of the word ‘bias’ is not a good choice. If you see the word as negative then haven’t you put a negative slant on yourself? You didn’t need my help. Do you also realize that a common synonym for bias is prejudice? Intolerance follows naturally as a result of being biased and/or prejudiced. From Webster: Bias: b : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : PREJUDICE c : an instance of such prejudice. From my British Collins dictionary: Mental tendency or inclination, esp. an irrational preference or prejudice. To be honest I think you have chosen an inappropriate word to describe yourself. However, you have unwittingly shown the basic flaws of theism. The opposite of bias is fairness, justness, and impartiality. No, that is incorrect and a non sequitur. You are arguing from your perspective as a theist where your beliefs are not based on objectivity or a factual basis. This also highlights the essential faults of theism and explains a great deal of your acrimonious animosity that you show here, as do many theists. When someone rationally looks at two (or more) sides of an issue they need to evaluate which sides, if any, represent truth or not. There should be no question as to whether either side ‘seems’ to be truthful or not, and neither is there a requirement to make a decision since none of the sides might be true. A conclusion might easily be that all sides fail a test for truth. The real issue is how to determine what is truth and what isn’t. For this, science has defined a comprehensive set of logical processes including hypothesizing, theorizing, and how to establish factual knowledge. The final result is – 1. A deductive proof that one side is clearly true. 2. That the conclusion is probably true based on inductive logic. 3. That one side is false. 4. No truth or fallacy either way can be determined. The final result is that one knows whether something is true, or false, or that there is room for doubt. Partially true. But there is never a need to have a “perception” of truth. Either one knows or one doesn’t, based on the processes described above. No, quite wrong. Personal bias should never enter into evaluations of truth objectively determined. No, I’d ask you for your proof and if you have none then I would choose not to believe you. This is very basic logic and has nothing to do with personal bias. There is never a need to show personal bias. Something is either true, or it isn’t, or the truth cannot be determined. No, again. Being convinced that something is wrong is not the same as knowing that something is wrong. If objective knowledge is not present then it is irrational to make a conclusion. The issue you have raised is one concerning the basis for your beliefs. You consider it acceptable to consider that something is true or false without a factual basis, that inevitably leads to a subjective personal bias, and all the irrational prejudices that results. This is a fatal flaw to theism and explains the often highly irrational and emotional attitudes that theists present here. Cris
I thought this was all understood silently. We are capable of observation, Ekimklaw. Humans always bring a certain amount of prejudice to the table. We make a judgement about certain people and let that rule our view similar people. It can manifest as skin color (do you feel comfortable taking a flight with Arabs on board?). It can also manifest as an oversion to a belief structure. We are all guilty of making generalizations. As a rule you can gauge whether you are wrong if that belief is stated. Is there an inherint factor that inclines all of those people to act a certain way? This works for professions. All garbage men deal with garbage. Doctors have the potential to save people. Any such generalization is valid. Christians pray and believe in a God. These things can be assumed. That is all valid. Atheists however have no code. They are by religious standards all sinners. That is valid from the indoctrinated standpoint. I have no idea what you are reffering to. Is there actually a place where atheists gather? I have yet to stumble on such a den. That just makes you a typical theist. I would not begrudge you for behaving within your indoctrination. I have no beef with the misguided followers. They often lack the personal conviction to change their ways. The ministers and priests are the ones with the position and ability to undo their damage. They are the criminals. They are the conmen.
So according to standard religious teachings you are biased against yourself. since all have 'all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god, blah blah blah" You, just like everyone else, according to your own teachings are a SINNER, dum dum dum. Whats so hard about hanging around sin anyways, if it really is the 'wrong' way. If its so wrong and bad and sick and everything else, how is it going to hurt you to say...be at a bar? Now I'm guessing you wouldn't have fun tehre anyways, but you said 'AVOID', therefor I assume you make it a point not to go anywhere you think people will be sinning. Just seems strange. My point is, if its the wrong life, and you know this with 'conviction' then what is it that being around it is 'tough'. Are you drawn in by some kind of evil force? or maybe the ways of the sinner just equate to a better life, and you know this, and since its the only life we get a part of you wants to live it to the fullest. Just a guess. Down here we get a lot of people saying things like 'oh theres so many non christians at my work, it gets really hard'. What exactly is it that makes it so tough to be around non christians. oh and btw they always mean catholics when they say this (which makes no sense at all, they are so closed minded and foolish that they can't even recognize their own kind, bunch of stuck up, prideful, arrogant basturds, the whole lot!) hehe. And you still haven't replied to a post in another thread. Why exactly do you believe the bible to be the holy infallible word of God????????
My bias occurred POST-DECISION. In this context, it merely means I am convinced I am right. Just like you are convinced you are right. So take a chill pill (gosh I hate that phrase) and relax. It gets better. Or worse... -Mike
So what if Ekim is a 'sinner', whatever the hell that means. I think all christians consider themselves to be sinners. Of course I may be grossly wrong but that is what I heard. Lotuseatvipers, please argue logically. "The best defence is a good offense" is not the world's best way to argue. All you seem to be doing is make personal insults and accusations against Ekim. I hope you are not atheist; it is not the way to argue logically. Ekim, it's a bit weird to see you calm when you are the one who blows up most of the time. Perhaps you have decided to put some more ice in your mind? Good choice.
My point was it's foolish to just close your ears because someone lives a different lifestyle than you. Oh LOGOS may you strike this person dead for his/her inflammatory remarks! You obviously missed my whole point. I was simply asking what is so 'can't go there' about sin. Why is it hard to have coworkers who aren't Christians?? My argument was perfectly logical because it was hardly an argument, it was simply a statement about the omnipresence of sin in humans and a question posed asking why Christians feel the need to avoid it at all costs. And I HARDLY personally insulted ekim in that post. Did you even read it? Me and ekim are buddy buddy now, he thinks I'm going to hell and I think he is 'insane', hehePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Seems to me YOU are the one that needs to chill out zero, not all argument styles go YOUR way. Just bustin your 'balls' eki, I think you figured that out already...I enjoy the discussion.
