mererdog

I think it usually is. Ask ten random people whether a given act is selfish, and you will likely get seventeen different answers. In my understanding, selfishness is putting the self above the other, while selflessness is putting the other above the self. As a firm believer in equality, I consider both to be vices rather than virtues. My needs are important. Your needs are equally important. I believe my needs are primarily my own responsibility, however, so for me to neglect my needs is to act irresponsibiy. I also believe that your needs are primarily your responsibility, thus for me to take care of your needs for you will usually mean destroying your sovereignty and relegating you to the status of a child or pet. Of course, at the margins, there are always obvious exceptions. There are always emergencies, disabilities, and other extenuating circumstances, after all. But as a simple rule of thumb, I fall back on the concept of reciprocity- I try to give only what I can actually afford and take only what I actually need.

So, do you see any important difference between bringing up your own atheism and bringing up the Christianity of others? 12 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said: Are you under the impression that I go around foaming? Since you ask, I try not to make assumptions about people based solely on what they put online, but you do often give the impression that you are holding tightly to a large grudge. Well, grudges, to be accurate. But my words were meant as a warning, not an accusation. Obsession is not usually an instantaneous sort of thing, but rather something people slowly slide into without realizing it is happening. Like any addiction, what starts out as a little fun can become a coping mechanism can become self-destruction. A song I like puts it well... "Love versus hate/ Worst enemies The one that survives is the one that I feed"

Well, sure. I think it is what we do after we recognise it that matters. Do we fail to keep things related to it in perspective? Do we keep bringing it up? Do we inject it into discussions that have nothing to do with it? Do we get emotionally overwrought when we think about it? Do we lose sleep over it? Do we lose friends and family over it? Do we let it consume us?

I struggle with it, personally. Its a bad habit I've been trying to ditch for thirty years, but just keeps cropping back up. I see someone with more, and suddenly I feel like I have less. My contentment shattered by my stupidity. It is annoying. I sincerely hope you manage it better.

No. I'm saying that I want to be happy. I am saying that a life spent focused on what I don't like is not a recipe for happiness. There is a difference, you see, between taking a stand and complaining. There is a difference between taking a stand and obsessing. There is a difference between taking a stand and attacking. There is a difference between taking a stand and declaring war.

Most people tend to think in comparative terms. It isnt how much you make, its how much you make compared to the other guys, you know? That mindset tells us it's no use being right unless someone else is wrong, and it is both a very pervasive and very persuasive mindset.

Militant meat eaters use militant vegetarians to justify their militance. Militant vegetarians use militant meat eaters to justify their militance. Neither seems like a good way to live. The constant focus on negativity seems unhealthy. It ends up like a sort of social hypochondria where nothing can be enjoyed because everything is viewed as a symptom of the disease (real or imagined) they are fixated on.

There are basically three kinds of vegetarians. The most socially prominent are the culture warriors who want everyone to know the evils of eating meat and who will regularly attack their chosen enemies, "meat industry" and "meat culture." More common are the vegetarians who think everyone should stop eating meat, but for their own good. They are quick to tell you how much better off you would be by being more like them. What works for them will work for anybody, after all. The third type is best summed up with the phrase "Eat and let eat." These people often made no conscious decision to be vegetarian, either simply sticking with the food they grew up with, or avoiding tastes they don't like. Of the three groups, the first seems to have the least amount of fun, the fewest friends, and the least amount of joy. So I try not to be that guy.

Many atheists actually do want it on their plate. I have personally known two atheists who told me they regularly pray to a God they hope is real- but who they don't actually believe in. I have known a ton of atheists who expressed a sort of wistful jealousy of theism, when discussing things like death anxiety. And I know a lot of athiest who regularly attend religious services, and more than a few who study religious texts as a hobby. Not all who wander are lost, and not all who stay put are home.

I don't think I ever had any. Looking back, the amount of effort I put into not having a kid is pretty staggering....

When I said that atheism exists as a response to theism, no one seemed to want to agree. Yet a topic about different names for atheists becomes a laundry list of complaints about theists.....

I think child-rearing styles tend to be heavily dependant on local and family level culture. That makes the word "we" very tricky, in context.

Until and unless some other moral authority is proven to be perfect, admitting my conscience is imperfect in no way suggests it is less reliable than any other source of moral guidance. As such, there remains no rational reason to ignore my conscience in favor of following something else. Note that I am not making pronouncements about what others should do, and am speaking only about the options available to me.

I said I was hopeful, not joyful. Things are getting better. They are far from perfect, but they are better than they were and the trend lines are good. Pessimism is the enemy of progress.

KPersonally, I have a bigger issue with the anthem than the pledge. Why must I be accosted by such horrid noise? Its like someone giving an alley cat a bad poetry enema. But I digress........ I have mixed feelings about the Pledge. On the one hand, it is clearly unconstitutional for the government to engage in that sort of religious propaganda. On the other hand, it doesn't seem to do any real harm to anyone, so its hard to care enough about it to complain. I'm fairly sure I've never actually recited it. As a kid, I always did that thing where you move your mouth without actually saying anything. Not because I had an objection to the Pledge, but because I enjoyed defying authority whenever it was safe to do so. Good thing I outgrew that.

I miss my Xperia. The camera was absolutely awesome. I have pictures I took on the beach in the middle of the night with no flash, and they look like daytime shots. I'm not good with having a sheet of glass in my pocket, though, so I'm no longer allowed to have expensive phones. The wife put her foot down. What can I do?

Gratefully, that means it is becoming less and less useful over time. Hopefully, it can become completely useless. And I keep seeing new reasons to be hopeful. Women can drive in Saudi Arabia now. Baby steps in the right direction, you know?

I understand your complaint and I think it has a lot of validity. A bit of historical context may help understand the concept of the "free thinker," however. It has long been the norm for Western societies to be theocracies, whether officially or not. One of the traits of a theocracy is the legislation of thought, and the free thinker concept evolved as a response to that. The term was coined as a complimentary way to describe the person willing to think (and express) forbidden thoughts. This served the duel purpose of insinuating that heresy laws and the like are attempts by Church and State to mentally subjugate the people, which was literally a revolutionary concept. As the theocracies have slowly died away, the notion of it being illegal to think certain things has died away as well, but it is still socially unacceptable to hold certain views. So the free thinker moniker still has a use, as it can indicate the person willing to hold (and express) unpopular views, while simultaneously suggesting that marginalization and stigmitization of people who express unpopular beliefs is simply an attempt to control thought. The danger in all this glorification of beliefs outside the norm is that some thoughts are discouraged by society for good reason. Many beliefs are just inherently destructive.

Might be both. Or maybe it is just fickle fate playing with us.

I don't know how the weight of an atom is knowable. That doesn't mean it isn't. The Apeal to Ignorance is still a fallacy.

No. I am suggesting that being open to the possibility that others know something that we do not is a necessary component of having an open mind. And please note that I am not saying that an open mind is always preferable. Certainty can be a very good thing. I do not like the idea of anyone being openminded about pedophilia, for example. Sometimes we should slam the mind shut and lock it down tight. But I ask again: If our mind is not open, is it useful to think it is?

I don't think so. Free will does not mean you can do whatever you want. It doesn't mean you can fly, nor that you can understand quantum mechanics. It just means you can make choices within a limited framework of available options. As such, the concept of free will is not incompatible with the concept of bias. Bias would simply be another factor limiting our available options, as does a low IQ, clinical depression, or being from New Zealand. My hope is that by understanding the limits better, I can make better choices. That by understanding my biases I can make better use of my free will.

Nice turn of phrase. Very evocative.

Part psychology and part neuroscience. It spills over into economics and computer science. A lot of disciplines are trying to get to the root of why we think the way we do.

I have known a lot of people who justified their racism with stories of how black people had done bad things in the past. Often, legitimate trauma had been intentionally inflicted upon them. But while the trauma explained their racism it could never justify it. Being in pain does not justify inflicting pain upon others. Holding the innocent accountable for the misdeeds of the guilty is unreasonable, unfair, and unjust. Religious intolerance and religious discrimination are ugly things. They help no one and harm many. It is important that this is stated clearly and in unequivocal terms.