The Morman hypothetical

[Hopper]

Seriously, you want to use a dictionary definition which is designed to be made as short as possible?

Dark, if you really don't know the difference between agnosticism and atheism, then ya best gitcho self a little more schoolin. I doubt that's really the case though.

Once certain "talking points" get set up by the "powers that be" within a religious movement such as atheism, then that's all you're gunna hear spouted by it's adherents.

The (thoroughly disingenuous) "talking point" I'm referring to? This: Atheism = Agnosticism.

 

[Gameface]

Why is it, I wonder, that people think they can change accepted definitions, estabished by centuries of common usage, by mere assertion. And why do they think that their preferred "definition" can in any way alter the natural facts?

Always been a mystery to me.

Not sure if that was partially directed at me, but I haven't altered the definition of atheism. Keep in mind, however, that the definition of atheism has been under the control of theists for the most part. The definition "One who denies the existence of God." is a very poor and utterly biased definition, and I reject it flat out. If you don't like it that's fine by me.

A = without
Theist = belief in god

Atheist = without belief in God

 

[Hopper]

The definition "One who denies the existence of God." is a very poor and utterly biased definition, and I reject it flat out.

Like I done tole Dark, eh, Game? Take it up with Websters.

Who knows, mebbe after you enlighten them they will change their definition, eh?

 

[Hopper]

I seem to have heard the allegation of someone being "utterly biased," before somewheres, but, fo da life of me, I can't recalls just where right now.

 

[colton]

I'd ask if his/her new beliefs would cause him/her to exclude me from any wedding he/she may have. If the answer is yes, I'd slap 'im/'er.

While I don't entirely agree with the LDS policy myself (I think people in the U.S. should be able to have a civil ceremony first, before the temple ceremony--like in many other countries), I find your attitude to be remarkably selfish. (If you really believe that, anyway, and are not just saying that as a reaction.) Your child's marriage is about *him* or *her*, not about you.

 

[colton]

A = without
Theist = belief in god

Atheist = without belief in God

I realize this is semantics, but would you say agnostics have a belief in God? If not, then they are atheists, by your definition. No?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

While I don't entirely agree with the LDS policy myself (I think people in the U.S. should be able to have a civil ceremony first, before the temple ceremony--like in many other countries), I find your attitude to be remarkably selfish. (If you really believe that, anyway, and are not just saying that as a reaction.) Your child's marriage is about *him* or *her*, not about you.

As always, truth is in the middle.



Although to be serious, if my child, knowing my opinion on matters such of these, were to do so, knowing my thought on the matter would be (WARNING: You may take it as offensive) "You've chosen a fictional, made-up entity over your own father," then he/she would know I would lose a lot of the familial bond we would have, would know how insulted I would be and how hurt I would be, and was doing all those things to me willingly.

And then I'm to be branded as selfish?

 

[Hopper]

"You've chosen a fictional, made-up entity over your own father," then he/she would know I would lose a lot of the familial bond we would have, would know how insulted I would be and how hurt I would be, and was doing all those things to me willingly.

And then I'm to be branded as selfish?

I aint gunna try to respond to your question, Dark, cause ya didn't ask me. But I have a question for you: How can you possibly pretend that your atheism is a purely objective, rational position, if you would be "hurt" and "insulted" if your children didn't cater to your opinion on the topic? Sounds like a lotta emotional investment, there, to me.

 

[colton]

Although to be serious, if my child, knowing my opinion on matters such of these, were to do so, knowing my thought on the matter would be (WARNING: You may take it as offensive) "You've chosen a fictional, made-up entity over your own father," then he/she would know I would lose a lot of the familial bond we would have, would know how insulted I would be and how hurt I would be, and was doing all those things to me willingly.

And then I'm to be branded as selfish?

Do you actually have any kids?

If so, is your trust in their judgment really so little that if they came to you and said, "Dad, I know you don't believe this way, but I've had these experiences which lead me to believe there is a God", you would dismiss it out of hand? Without even allowing for ANY possibility that they could be doing what's right for them?

Oh, and yes, you would rightfully be branded as selfish if you reacted that way.

 

[colton]

P.S. And how is your (prospective) reaction ANY different than, say, a religious person who disowns his child upon learning that he/she is gay? It seems to me to be nearly the exact thing.

(Yes, got the thread back around to the OP! Bonus points for me!)

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Do you actually have any kids?

No, so we're only dealing in hypotheticals.

And if children willfully excluding parents from a wedding makes the parents selfish, then it only reaffirms my dislike for all religions, specifically monotheistic religions.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

P.S. And how is your (prospective) reaction ANY different than, say, a religious person who disowns his child upon learning that he/she is gay? It seems to me to be nearly the exact thing.

(Yes, got the thread back around to the OP! Bonus points for me!)

1. No talk of disowning. My father has been disowned by his family. I have no desire to be a part of that.
2. Choice vs. not a choice.
3. Child cutting off parent from (important part of) life in one scenario, not the other.

 

[Hopper]

If I understand this right, the premises here are:

1. Dark believes God is a "fictional character;"
2. His child (daughter, let's say) believes God is real
3. She believes there is a conflict between what God wants her to do and what Dark wants her to do, and chooses to do "God's will"
4. Dark is hurt and insulted.

From her perspective, Dark is, in effect, sayin: "How can you possibly choose God over me!? I should be more important to you than God. Put another way, I should be your God, not someone else."

 

[Darkwing Duck]

If I understand this right, the premises here are:

1. Dark believes God is a "fictional character;"
2. His child (daughter, let's say) believes God is real
3. She believes there is a conflict between what God wants her to do and what Dark wants her to do, and chooses to do "God's will"
4. Dark is hurt and insulted.

From her perspective, Dark is, in effect, sayin: "How can you possibly chose God over me!? I should be more important to you than God. Put another way, I should be your God, not someone else."

Quite incorrect. I'm, in effect, sayin: "How can you possibly choose a made up thing over me!? I should be more important to you than fantasies. Put another way, no one or no thing should be your god."

EDIT: Ah, from her perspective. Closer to the truth other than the the last line.

EDIT #2: And I have no problem with children believing in fantastical things. It's when those fantastical things tell you to cut off your family is when I have a problem.

 

[TroutBum]

If I understand this right, the premises here are:

1. Dark believes God is a "fictional character;"
2. His child (daughter, let's say) believes God is real
3. She believes there is a conflict between what God wants her to do and what Dark wants her to do, and chooses to do "God's will"
4. Dark is hurt and insulted.

From her perspective, Dark is, in effect, sayin: "How can you possibly choose God over me!? I should be more important to you than God. Put another way, I should be your God, not someone else."

Holy piss, a post that I can read and actually agree with!




*slits throat*

 

[colton]

No, so we're only dealing in hypotheticals.

OK, thanks. I'll bet your perspective will change once you have kids.

And if children willfully excluding parents from a wedding makes the parents selfish, then it only reaffirms my dislike for all religions, specifically monotheistic religions.

Way to twist the scenario.

It's the PARENT'S reaction to the kid's choices that makes the parent selfish (or not), not the kid's choices themselves. But you knew that.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

OK, thanks. I'll bet your perspective will change once you have kids.

Quite possible. I don't think it would change me being upset and hurt, though.

Way to twist the scenario.

It's the PARENT'S reaction to the kid's choices that makes the parent selfish (or not), not the kid's choices themselves. But you knew that.

It's not twisting, it's adding real situations. The kid makes the choice knowing full well what the reaction would be.

 

[Hopper]

Since we're back on this topic, lemme share my tremendous wisdom and insight about it, eh?

1. If my boy come home and said he wanted to make a career outta bein gay, I would tell him not to go bringin any of his homo pals round my joint. Mainly cause I wouldn't wanna end up doin time when I got carried away and capped they sorry *** when they started callin each other things like "butter-buns."

2. If my girl come home and said the same, I would say: Ya likez wimminz!? Me too! You go, girl! Don't forget to brang yo girlfriends by, now, hear?

 

[Gameface]

I realize this is semantics, but would you say agnostics have a belief in God? If not, then they are atheists, by your definition. No?

There are a lot of different kinds of agnostics. It is, by definition, the gray area between theism and atheism. It's up to the individual if they're almost theists or almost atheists. Maybe they're exactly in-between, but I figure most of the people who try to be right in-between are just people pleasers and you have no idea what they actually think.

 

[bigb]

Quite incorrect. I'm, in effect, sayin: "How can you possibly choose a made up thing over me!? I should be more important to you than fantasies. Put another way, no one or no thing should be your god."

EDIT: Ah, from her perspective. Closer to the truth other than the the last line.

EDIT #2: And I have no problem with children believing in fantastical things. It's when those fantastical things tell you to cut off your family is when I have a problem.

At what point in the child's life does he/she get to choose what is best for him/her? At what point in time do you simply accept that without any thought of what the effect on your life is? Why does it have to be God or you? Why can't it be both?
For example: My wife and I were married in the temple. The only people from my wife's family that were in the temple were her Great Grandmother and one aunt. We chose to have an additional "ring ceremony" outside of the temple so that her family could participate. Nobody was offended that she chose to be married in the temple, even though they weren't there. Granted, neither of my wife's parents are atheists, but they still respected her decision to do what she wanted. News flash: It's not always about you.
I also agree with colton's idea that the Church should allow people to be married outside the temple and then go inside for the temple ceremony immediately after.