181 new posts suddenly? Anything important I need to check out? (Kind of busy with life at the moment.)
We proved Sebastian does not exist.
Objective: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
By the definition of objective morality the being laying down the rules for human morality should have no personal feelings towards humanity. I therefore believe it is impossible for a creator deity to instill an objective morality upon their creation unless the creator has no feelings towards their creation. This is certainly not the creator who is presented in the Bible who is shown to have a myriad of feeling towards humanity.
It took you 181 posts to do that? It should have only taken around 45.181 new posts suddenly? Anything important I need to check out? (Kind of busy with life at the moment.)We proved Sebastian does not exist.
Yeah, but it had to be written in legalese.
|
Yeah, but it had to be written in legalese.It took you 181 posts to do that? It should have only taken around 45.181 new posts suddenly? Anything important I need to check out? (Kind of busy with life at the moment.)We proved Sebastian does not exist.
Ha!
(I went back a page to see what people were talking about. I know nothing about Hume or what else is being "discussed" -- sounds like there may have been some problems earlier -- but it makes for some interesting reading regardless.)
I'm confused. Is anyone arguing that an "objective morality" is preferable to a "subjective morality", or is this purely a semantic argument?
I'm confused. Is anyone arguing that an "objective morality" is preferable to a "subjective morality", or is this purely a semantic argument?
I believe there is an assumed preference. If morality is subjective it is harder to claim a right or wrong. If it is objective, then someone can claim a right or wrong. Useful for treating undesirables as second class citizens.
I'm confused. Is anyone arguing that an "objective morality" is preferable to a "subjective morality", or is this purely a semantic argument?I believe there is an assumed preference. If morality is subjective it is harder to claim a right or wrong. If it is objective, then someone can claim a right or wrong. Useful for treating undesirables as second class citizens.
Well, it's useful because the world is an easier place to live in when everyone follows the same rules you do. When you can claim that your rules are handed down by the infallible man in the sky it’s easier to make people accept your rules as opposed to “this is what I think people should do.”
I'm confused. Is anyone arguing that an "objective morality" is preferable to a "subjective morality", or is this purely a semantic argument?I believe there is an assumed preference. If morality is subjective it is harder to claim a right or wrong. If it is objective, then someone can claim a right or wrong. Useful for treating undesirables as second class citizens.
On the face of it an objective morality would seem better. But of course we can externalize just about anything and thus make it objective for certain, albeit somewhat minimal and shell game style, values of the word. We could construct a table of actions and a second table of moral states (say "none" "sometimes good" "sometimes bad" "always good" "always bad") and roll to cross-reference them. That would be objective, at least with fair dice and an even distribution of deeds on the tables, but also pretty much worthless so far as most notions of morality go.
Which is similar, I suppose, to the usual problem with treating a deity as a moral authority. If the deity's word alone makes something good or bad, then it could decree that rape and murder are good and we would have to agree this is the case. Leaving aside the obvious historical examples of just that kind of thing, it's not a path most people are content with.
Is it possible to be a moral person without living according to the rules of God?
Depends entirely on your definition of "morality." If your definition is "the most literal possible reading of what Book X says*, regardless of compassion, empathy, or general consensus," then no. If your definition of "morality" includes the latter things, but not necessarily the former, then yes, of course.
* Leaving aside for now the hordes of people who define "moral" as "How I personally choose to interpret Book X," which is another matter enirely.
|
Is it possible to be a moral person without living according to the rules of God*?
*Or a superintelligent magic rainbow computer, or whatever source of objective morality you prefer.
See, that was how I interpreted Avalon's argument (ie.- that you can't be a morally upstanding person if you don't believe in a god). You constantly hear that about atheists and it's just plain dumb.
|
|
See, that was how I interpreted Avalon's argument (ie.- that you can't be a morally upstanding person if you don't believe in a god). You constantly hear that about atheists and it's just plain dumb.Is it possible to be a moral person without living according to the rules of God*?
*Or a superintelligent magic rainbow computer, or whatever source of objective morality you prefer.
See, that's the problem. That was never even implied in any of Avalon's posts. Not once.
Seriously, go read Hume (his collected works should only take you a couple of months to get through), then reread Avalon's posts. Avalon was trying to debate a specific aspect of Hume's philosophy and never once made a statement about his or her personal beliefs. And Avalon certainly never made any statement suggesting "objective" morals were "better" than subjective morals. Or that atheists were inherently amoral.
Furthermore, even if there was an objective morality that had its basis in a creator god, those morals would be, well, objective. It would make zero difference whether someone did or did not believe in said being as, morals being objective, all you'd have to do is compare the person's behavior to those objective morals to determine whether or not they are a "moral" person. Hell, Christians have a whole story in the Bible discussing that exact point. You know, the Good Samaritan.
Damn, I'm going to have to stop telling people I'm an atheist. I may get lumped in with the narrow minded, dogmatic, thin skinned atheists I see here every day...
See, that's the problem. That was never even implied in any of Avalon's posts. Not once.
I saw it as a giant flashing neon sign, but since it was between the lines, maybe it was only flashing on while you were blinking...
The fact that his initial conditions included Hume's limits on objectivity for everything EXCEPT a Creator (which got a free pass from him instead), sort of rigged his proposal. That's like me challenging you to name a flavor of ice cream other than chocolate, and then establishing the condition that no flavors will be accepted except chocolate, which gets a special dispensation.
|
|
See, that's the problem. That was never even implied in any of Avalon's posts. Not once.I saw it as a giant flashing neon sign, but since it was between the lines, maybe it was only flashing on while you were blinking...
The fact that his initial conditions included Hume's limits on objectivity for everything EXCEPT a Creator (which got a free pass from him instead), sort of rigged his proposal. That's like me challenging you to name a flavor of ice cream other than chocolate, and then establishing the condition that no flavors will be accepted except chocolate, which gets a special dispensation.
I also think that it is possible that all of Avalon's posts were read though the filter of y'alls argument over what the Pope said. Since I kind of just skimmed over that stuff (seriously, I couldn't give a care what the dude with the funny hat says) and only read the posts concerning Hume's "is/ought" discussion (I love Hume, so that was interesting to me), I just didn't see that y'all were reading into his or her posts.
I also think that it is possible that all of Avalon's posts were read though the filter of y'alls argument over what the Pope said.
Probably not, since that was me and CJ. I don't know if Avalon's a Catholic or not (although I doubt it), but I don't recall him pulling a Ben Stein the way Ratzi did.
Like I said, enforcing Hume's limits is fine, but that disqualifies a Creator's plan as objective morals. To then turn around and make a special dispensation that a Creator is suddenly OK means that the argument is being rigged from the start. That's why I had to demonstrate that my alternative would apply equally to a Creator or a no-Creator universe, so that I could fit it in under the magic dispensation. Whereupon he tightened the goalpost that somehow only a Creator, without any necessary co-riders, could get the free pass.
|
|
I also think that it is possible that all of Avalon's posts were read though the filter of y'alls argument over what the Pope said.Probably not, since that was me and CJ. I don't know if Avalon's a Catholic or not (although I doubt it), but I don't recall him pulling a Ben Stein the way Ratzi did.
Hold on, I'll get the post I'm thinking of and quote it.
(and between you and I, the impression I get is Avalon is closer to being an atheist - or, perhaps agnostic - than you think)
|
|
Ratzinger gave Nazi Germany as an extreme example of the consequences of atheist thinking. He went on to connect the loss of the moral compass provided by religion to an inevitable decline in respect for individual rights.
I don't think that implies that all atheists are Nazis. It implies that Nazi conduct is morally permissable in an atheist society in a way it's not in a religious society.
This is the post I was thinking of. And even here, Avalon doesn't give a personal opinion of what they thing of the Pope's thoughts, he or she just attempts to show how they interpreted what the Pope said.
Nothing even implies Avalon agrees with what the Pope said.
Ratzinger gave Nazi Germany as an extreme example of the consequences of atheist thinking.This is the post I was thinking of. And even here, Avalon doesn't give a personal opinion of what they thing of the Pope's thoughts, he or she just attempts to show how they interpreted what the Pope said.
Nothing even implies Avalon agrees with what the Pope said.
Except that he presents this "example" -- even if it's someone else's -- as if it's a true example. Like if I say, "Derek gave New Yorkers as an example of people who suck, so we shouldn't be too hard on anyone who hates them."
|
|
Except that he presents this "example" -- even if it's someone else's -- as a true example. Like if I say, "Derek gave New Yorkers as an example of people who suck, so we shouldn't be too hard on anyone who hates them."Ratzinger gave Nazi Germany as an extreme example of the consequences of atheist thinking.This is the post I was thinking of. And even here, Avalon doesn't give a personal opinion of what they thing of the Pope's thoughts, he or she just attempts to show how they interpreted what the Pope said.
Nothing even implies Avalon agrees with what the Pope said.
Again, I don't interpret it that way. Avalon makes no judgment either way whether it is a "true" statement or not. Avalon is simply making a statement to what he or she thought the Pope was implying, not that he or she agreed or thought the Pope was, in fact, right.
But then, I was a communications major. What do I know about communications?
But then, I was a communications major. What do I know about communications?
You know enough to spot the difference between these:
1. "Ratzinger gave Nazi Germany as an extreme example of the consequences of atheist thinking."
2. "Ratzinger gave Nazi Germany as an example of where he believes atheist thinking can lead."
3. "Ratzinger gave Nazi Germany as an example of where he believes atheist thinking automatically leads."
(etc.)
|
|
You know Kirth, it seems to me that you are looking to be insulted. Weren't you the one that said Christians are too sensitive? Ever since the Pope said that stuff you've done nothing but whine, piss, and moan.Except that he presents this "example" -- even if it's someone else's -- as if it's a true example. Like if I say, "Derek gave New Yorkers as an example of people who suck, so we shouldn't be too hard on anyone who hates them."Ratzinger gave Nazi Germany as an extreme example of the consequences of atheist thinking.This is the post I was thinking of. And even here, Avalon doesn't give a personal opinion of what they thing of the Pope's thoughts, he or she just attempts to show how they interpreted what the Pope said.
Nothing even implies Avalon agrees with what the Pope said.
IIRC, Gary, you were the one complaining about "christian bashing threads." You seem to take issue with interwebs forums "bashing" christians, yet have no problem with the infallible figurehead of one of the world's major religions saying that atheists are nazis (or people agreeing with said statement)? That's not even a double standard, that's just crazy...
IIRC, Gary, you were the one complaining about "christian bashing threads." You seem to take issue with interwebs forums "bashing" christians, yet have no problem with the infallible figurehead of one of the world's major religions saying that atheists are nazis (or people agreeing with said statement)? That's not even a double standard, that's just crazy...
Yes, but you didn't see me go on about it day after day did you?
|
|
Yes, but you didn't see me go on about it day after day did you?
So you're saying that random guy with his interwebs forum post = the f~#!ing pope?! I'm just trying to follow your logic here. See, to me, the former has no power, no influence, etc. so is not that big of a deal (if at all). The pope OTOH, holds sway over millions of people...i'd say that's a big difference (one worth a few days/weeks/months worth of conversation/debate).
|
|
But then, I was a communications major. What do I know about communications?You know enough to spot the difference between these:
1. "Ratzinger gave Nazi Germany as an extreme example of the consequences of atheist thinking."
2. "Ratzinger gave Nazi Germany as an example of where he believes atheist thinking can lead."
3. "Ratzinger gave Nazi Germany as an example of where he believes atheist thinking automatically leads."(etc.)
However, none of them contain anything resembling an "I" statement. The first example (which is what you're focusing on) is a statement of fact. Ratzinger did, indeed, give Nazi Germany as an extreme example of the consequences of atheist thinking. This implies that Ratzinger knows where atheism leads. I.E. he is convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt.
The next two suggest he is offering a hypothesis, not an absolute fact.
The fist statement also suggests that Ratzinger is in no way open to debate on the subject. His mind is closed. Which, frankly, is probably the absolute truth.
The next two are much weaker statements, allowing the possibility his mind is not entirely made up on the subject, and, perhaps, he is open to being proven incorrect.
None of them imply the "reporter" (for want of a better word), agrees with the statements. All would require the "reporter" to add some form of an "I" statement to convey agreement with any of those statements.
All I did for three years was study language and its usage, trust me on this one.
|
|
IIRC, Gary, you were the one complaining about "christian bashing threads." You seem to take issue with interwebs forums "bashing" christians, yet have no problem with the infallible figurehead of one of the world's major religions saying that atheists are nazis (or people agreeing with said statement)? That's not even a double standard, that's just crazy...You know Kirth, it seems to me that you are looking to be insulted. Weren't you the one that said Christians are too sensitive? Ever since the Pope said that stuff you've done nothing but whine, piss, and moan.Except that he presents this "example" -- even if it's someone else's -- as if it's a true example. Like if I say, "Derek gave New Yorkers as an example of people who suck, so we shouldn't be too hard on anyone who hates them."Ratzinger gave Nazi Germany as an extreme example of the consequences of atheist thinking.This is the post I was thinking of. And even here, Avalon doesn't give a personal opinion of what they thing of the Pope's thoughts, he or she just attempts to show how they interpreted what the Pope said.
Nothing even implies Avalon agrees with what the Pope said.
Actually, I do far more b###&ing about the "Christian bashing" than Gary does. And I do find it hilarious how quickly atheists get their panties in a wad when some pointy hat wearing dude says some crazy s#*& after atheists constantly telling Christians to suck it up when they rail against "those ignorant religious mouth breathers".
And I'm an atheist.
So...
Yes, but you didn't see me go on about it day after day did you?So you're saying that random guy with his interwebs forum post = the f#!#ing pope?! I'm just trying to follow your logic here. See, to me, the former has no power, no influence, etc. so is not that big of a deal (if at all). The pope OTOH, holds sway over millions of people...i'd say that's a big difference (one worth a few days/weeks/months worth of conversation/debate).
*sigh* It wouldn't have mattered if the Pope had said it or if an evangelical Christian had snuck onto the thread and had said something inappropriate. The real problem is that guys like you, Samnell, and Kirth love to take a shot at Christianity at any opportunity possible, but you can't handle it when the $hit comes back on you. It's really that simple.
Actually, I do far more b**!*ing about the "Christian bashing" than Gary does. And I do find it hilarious how quickly atheists get their panties in a wad when some pointy hat wearing dude says some crazy s#%% after atheists constantly telling Christians to suck it up when they rail against "those ignorant religious mouth breathers".
OK, so if I say a dude covering up widespread rape should be accountable, I'm "railing against those ignorant religious mouth breathers."
If that dude turns around and calls us nazis, and his followers have no problem with that either, and they even make a movie about it, that's all OK.Just so I know where I stand.
|
|
*sigh* It wouldn't have mattered if the Pope had said it or if an evangelical Christian had snuck onto the thread and had said something inapprpriate. The real problem is that guys like you, Samnell, and Kirth love to take a shot at Christianity at any opportunity possible, but you can't handle it when the $hit comes back on you. It's really that simple.Yes, but you didn't see me go on about it day after day did you?So you're saying that random guy with his interwebs forum post = the f#!#ing pope?! I'm just trying to follow your logic here. See, to me, the former has no power, no influence, etc. so is not that big of a deal (if at all). The pope OTOH, holds sway over millions of people...i'd say that's a big difference (one worth a few days/weeks/months worth of conversation/debate).
There are degrees of severity, like it or not. Sam, Kirth, and I have no influence whatsoever (relatively speaking). The pope's word, OTOH, is taken as the infallible word of god by millions of catholics around the globe.
Please explain to me (in your own words) how something I say on the interwebs has the same impact as something the pope says on the international stage?
The real problem is that guys like you, Samnell, and Kirth love to take a shot at Christianity at any opportunity possible, but you can't handle it when the $hit comes back on you. It's really that simple.
When do I "take a shot at Christianity"? I bash Young Earth Creationism as often as possible, because it's demonstrably false, but that's not the same thing. I also bash the Pope for abetting felonies on a massive scale, but that's not the same as "bashing Christians" either.
If I've misspoken and made the targets broader than those, let me know -- I'll happily correct myself as warranted. Or are you just assuming Samnell speaks for me, and that all us atheists are interchangeable?
Or does simply admitting disbelief count as "bashing"?
|
|
Actually, I do far more b**!*ing about the "Christian bashing" than Gary does. And I do find it hilarious how quickly atheists get their panties in a wad when some pointy hat wearing dude says some crazy s#%% after atheists constantly telling Christians to suck it up when they rail against "those ignorant religious mouth breathers".OK, so if I say a dude covering up widespread rape should be accountable, I'm "railing against those ignorant religious mouth breathers."
If that dude turns around and calls us nazis, and his followers have no problem with that either, and they even make a movie about it, that's all OK.Just so I know where I stand.
The two are unrelated. The Catholic Church is a den of pedophiles. Call them out on that all you want.
But, I've heard Christians (don't make me quote something from almost every page of this thread, that's a lot of work) called all sorts of vile crap on here, had their intelligence impugned due to their faith, and all sorts of other things. So, when some baby raping idiot throws a volley in y'alls direction, get over it. He's a mouth breathing idiot for having faith anyway, what difference does it make what he says?
|
|
*sigh* It wouldn't have mattered if the Pope had said it or if an evangelical Christian had snuck onto the thread and had said something inapprpriate. The real problem is that guys like you, Samnell, and Kirth love to take a shot at Christianity at any opportunity possible, but you can't handle it when the $hit comes back on you. It's really that simple.Yes, but you didn't see me go on about it day after day did you?So you're saying that random guy with his interwebs forum post = the f#!#ing pope?! I'm just trying to follow your logic here. See, to me, the former has no power, no influence, etc. so is not that big of a deal (if at all). The pope OTOH, holds sway over millions of people...i'd say that's a big difference (one worth a few days/weeks/months worth of conversation/debate).There are degrees of severity, like it or not. Sam, Kirth, and I have no influence whatsoever (relatively speaking). The pope's word, OTOH, is taken as the infallible word of god by millions of catholics around the globe.
Please explain to me (in your own words) how something I say on the interwebs has the same impact as something the pope says on the international stage?
Did some Catholic show up at your doorstep and try to burn you at the stake today?
But, I've heard Christians (don't make me quote something from almost every page of this thread, that's a lot of work) called all sorts of vile crap on here, had their intelligence impugned due to their faith, and all sorts of other things. So, when some baby raping idiot throws a volley in y'alls direction, get over it. He's a mouth breathing idiot for having faith anyway, what difference does it make what he says?
That's the thing -- you're careful to separate the pedophiles from the "real Christians," which is good, makes sense, and is something I agree with. But you're happy to lump all atheists together in the same boat -- anything Samnell says, for example, is OK to blame on me as well -- which smacks of a double standard being applied.
|
|
Did some Catholic show up at your doorstep and try to burn you at the stake today?*sigh* It wouldn't have mattered if the Pope had said it or if an evangelical Christian had snuck onto the thread and had said something inapprpriate. The real problem is that guys like you, Samnell, and Kirth love to take a shot at Christianity at any opportunity possible, but you can't handle it when the $hit comes back on you. It's really that simple.Yes, but you didn't see me go on about it day after day did you?So you're saying that random guy with his interwebs forum post = the f#!#ing pope?! I'm just trying to follow your logic here. See, to me, the former has no power, no influence, etc. so is not that big of a deal (if at all). The pope OTOH, holds sway over millions of people...i'd say that's a big difference (one worth a few days/weeks/months worth of conversation/debate).There are degrees of severity, like it or not. Sam, Kirth, and I have no influence whatsoever (relatively speaking). The pope's word, OTOH, is taken as the infallible word of god by millions of catholics around the globe.
Please explain to me (in your own words) how something I say on the interwebs has the same impact as something the pope says on the international stage?
The catholics didn't do anything about the nazis the first time around...why should they act any different now?
|
|
But, I've heard Christians (don't make me quote something from almost every page of this thread, that's a lot of work) called all sorts of vile crap on here, had their intelligence impugned due to their faith, and all sorts of other things. So, when some baby raping idiot throws a volley in y'alls direction, get over it. He's a mouth breathing idiot for having faith anyway, what difference does it make what he says?That's the thing -- you're careful to separate the pedophiles from the "real Christians," which is good, makes sense, and is something I agree with. But you're happy to lump all atheists together in the same boat -- anything Samnell says, for example, is OK to blame on me as well -- which smacks of a double standard being applied.
I don't lump you in with anyone. I'm speaking generally.
My only debate right now with you is over interpreting Avalon's posts, and I think that's more of an issue with our individual filters than anything, and the fact you're fun to argue with.
Gary may be lumping you into that group due to your not calling out some people who do make stupid statements about Christians, but I don't care about that. It isn't your job to defend them. I just do it because, again, it's fun, and somewhat ironic considering my stance on religion.
and the fact you're fun to argue with.
Are we the only two people on the thread who aren't annoyed at each other, I wonder?
|
|
The catholics didn't do anything about the nazis the first time around...why should they act any different now?Did some Catholic show up at your doorstep and try to burn you at the stake today?*sigh* It wouldn't have mattered if the Pope had said it or if an evangelical Christian had snuck onto the thread and had said something inapprpriate. The real problem is that guys like you, Samnell, and Kirth love to take a shot at Christianity at any opportunity possible, but you can't handle it when the $hit comes back on you. It's really that simple.Yes, but you didn't see me go on about it day after day did you?So you're saying that random guy with his interwebs forum post = the f#!#ing pope?! I'm just trying to follow your logic here. See, to me, the former has no power, no influence, etc. so is not that big of a deal (if at all). The pope OTOH, holds sway over millions of people...i'd say that's a big difference (one worth a few days/weeks/months worth of conversation/debate).There are degrees of severity, like it or not. Sam, Kirth, and I have no influence whatsoever (relatively speaking). The pope's word, OTOH, is taken as the infallible word of god by millions of catholics around the globe.
Please explain to me (in your own words) how something I say on the interwebs has the same impact as something the pope says on the international stage?
Neither did the Lutherans (who outnumber Catholics by a considerable margin in Germany). Or the British and French until it was too late.
What's your point?
Or does simply admitting disbelief count as "bashing"?
Unbelievable. Yeah Kirth that's it. That's what's got me irritated. *rolls eyes* I have one example off the top of my head. Do you remember what you said about American Christians when the Ugandans began slaying homosexuals? Do you want me to go find the posts? You know Kirth when I first joined Paizo, you were a person that I did respect, even if I didn't agree with you most the time. Over the last year I've seen a change for the worse in you. What in the hell has happened to you?
My only debate right now with you is over interpreting Avalon's posts, and I think that's more of an issue with our individual filters than anything.
That's a good point, BTW. You hang out with a far more liberal crowd than I do, it seems. I have co-workers who honestly believe they'll never die, because the Rapture will obviously come any day now, and that anyone who doesn't listen to Rush and Beck is a "Socialist Communist Nazi Muslim atheist who hates America."
|
|
Unbelievable. Yeah Kirth that's it. That's what's got me irritated. *rolls eyes* I have one example off the top of my head. Do you remember what you said about American Christians when the Ugandans began slaying homosexuals? Do you want me to go find the posts? You know Kirth when I first joined Paizo, you were a person that I did respect, even if I didn't agree with you most the time. Over the last year I've seen a change for the worse in you. What in the hell has happened to you?
Or does simply admitting disbelief count as "bashing"?
Those Ugandans who passed the law saying people could be executed for being homosexual? Those Ugandans who were bankrolled by an American christian hate group? I'm sure whatever he said, it was earned.
|
|
My only debate right now with you is over interpreting Avalon's posts, and I think that's more of an issue with our individual filters than anything.That's a good point, BTW. You hang out with a far more liberal crowd than I do, it seems. I have co-workers who honestly believe they'll never die, because the Rapture will obviously come any day now, and that anyone who doesn't listen to Rush and Beck is a "Socialist Communist Nazi Muslim atheist who hates America."
Some day, you'll listen to me and move to this part of town. The commute would be easier for your sig other, and you'd get to hang out with my type of people more often.
Of course, people in this part of town think I'm a Rush listening, right wing nutjob Nazi baby killer, so it's all relative.
|
|
Neither did the Lutherans (who outnumber Catholics by a considerable margin in Germany). Or the British and French until it was too late.
What's your point?
I honestly don't know where I was going with that, so I'll make it simple and allow you to make your point. No, there wasn't a catholic mob on my doorstep trying to burn me at the stake.
|
|
I honestly don't know where I was going with that, so I'll make it simple and allow you to make your point. No, there wasn't a catholic mob on my doorstep trying to burn me at the stake.Neither did the Lutherans (who outnumber Catholics by a considerable margin in Germany). Or the British and French until it was too late.
What's your point?
I'll let you in on a little secret: most of the Catholics you'll meet in the U.S. or Europe don't take the Pope all that seriously. ;)
Over the last year I've seen a change for the worse in you. What in the hell has happened to you?
Tired, I think. I have to keep my actual religious views secret at work, lest I be immediately fired and blackballed -- it's like a fundamentalist convention. I see the same people lie and otherwise break all the commandments, but I'm, as an atheist, supposedly the one with "no morals" (I hear that theme on a daily basis). Then I turn around and Ben Stein makes a movie that says I'm a Nazi, and the Pope calls me one, too -- and nobody calls foul except a minority of other atheists.
I'm honestly starting to believe that trying to be reasonable and fair is only relegating non-believers to perpetual demonization and second-class citizen status. Civil rights gained no traction until they became very outspoken about it. Same deal, more recently, with gay rights. I'm wondering if outright protest isn't the only thing that might allow me to be accepted one day as a full American citizen.
In a nutshell: I stopped defending Christians against more vocal atheists because the so-called "moderate" Christians don't stand up for me against their crazier brethren -- and there are more of them than there are of me, and it's a lot easier for them to do.
Over the last year I've seen a change for the worse in you. What in the hell has happened to you?Tired, I think. I have to keep my actual religious views secret at work, lest I be immediately fired and blackballed -- it's like a fundamentalist convention. I see the same people lie and otherwise break all the commandments, but I'm supposedly the immoral one. Then I turn around and Ben Stein makes a movie that says I'm a Nazi, and the Pope calls me one, too -- and nobody calls foul except a minority of other atheists.
I'm honestly starting to believe that trying to be reasonable and fair is only relegating non-believers to perpetual second-class citizen status. Civil rights gained no traction until they became very outspoken about it. Same deal, more recently, with gay rights. I'm wondering if outright protest isn't the only thing that might allow me to be accepted one day as a full American citizen.
In a nutshell: I stopped defending Christians against more vocal atheists because the so-called "moderate" Christians don't stand up for me against their crazier brethren -- and there are more of them than there are of me, and it's a lot easier for them to do.
Sorry to hear that. If it's that bad, is it possible to get another position elsewhere?
Sorry to hear that. If it's that bad, is it possible to get another position elsewhere?
I'm looking. The economy is still very slow, and (irony) most Candian and Australian employers won't look at me because I live in Texas.
Honestly, if moderate Christians would more often pop in and say things like, "Hey, I'm not a Catholic, and I agree the Pope was out of line there," or "Hey! I know some atheists who are more moral than a lot of the so-called Christians I know," things would be a lot easier, and most of the anti-Christian rhetoric would die down -- because there would be no need for it. Atheists are a very small minority, and they're being threatened all the time; a show of support would make them as a whole feel a lot more secure and a lot less belligerent.
Sorry to hear that. If it's that bad, is it possible to get another position elsewhere?I'm looking. The economy is still very slow, and (irony) most Candian and Australian employers won't look at me because I live in Texas.
Honestly, if moderate Christians would more often pop in and say things like, "Hey, I'm not a Catholic, and I agree the Pope was out of line there," or "Hey! I know some atheists who are more moral than a lot of the so-called Christians I know," things would be a lot easier, and most of the anti-Christian rhetoric would die down -- because there would be no need for it. Atheists are a very small minority, and they're being threatened all the time; a show of support would make them as a whole feel a lot more secure and a lot less belligerent.
Good luck to you on that job search. The way the economy is it's hard on everyone. FWIW, I did defend the atheists against the Pope on Facebook.