The clerks were a parenthetical comment which can be deleted without changing the meaning of my sentence: “[T]hese people are often strangers, so I don’t particularly care if they have a nice day or not.”
Naw, perish the thought. I didn’t take it that you were trying to be an uppity-know-it-all. I appreciate you pointing out one of the many errors that this anecdote makes by making Einstein out as a Christian, when you knew Einstein was a Jew. I did want to point out further that Einstein wasn’t a Jew in any religious sense of the word either. My guess is that whoever wrote this anecdote also knew this, but it didn’t matter, they knew many believers would pass it off as truth, and not bothering to want to correct any of it since the student was going up against what is being made out as an arrogant atheist professor know it all, and he was supposedly getting his comeuppance.
Einstein’s brief correspondence with Guy Raner on his personal religious beliefs, which is consistent with what he has shared in many other personal letters, speeches, and in his book Ideas and Opinions.
Dude, you’ve been posting here long enough to know better than this. An atheist is a person who lacks a belief in a deity. “Not having a belief” is atheism. Some atheists (ie a subset of atheists) have a belief that there are no gods. Unless you have a belief in a deity you are an atheist. If you don’t care enough to have any belief, you are an atheist.
Posting, yes, but reading, absorbing, and understanding what I read so I can reply in a thoughtful and coherent manner? Do you even read my posts?
But yeah, that’s a definition, and a useful one when I’m not trying (there I go again, making an effort) to distance myself from the Dawkins and Hitchens of the world, but here I wish to divide the non-believers into those who care that they don’t believe and will argue about it and those who say, “I dunno. Just sounds kinda silly.” And I’ve said too much on the topic and risk turning into one of the former.
Guin is softening because she’s showing you compassion. Technically, you are exactly the type of atheist that justifies Christian’s hate of atheists. You don’t give a shit that you may have hurt the feelings of a child. As long as you get to get back at the adult behind the child, the child is irrelevant.
You got fucking annoyed. That’s it. Nothing wrong happened to you. Some kid told you something you know isn’t true. A normal human being laughs at it and moves on. If God doesn’t exist, then someone telling you that you are going to hell, with obvious good intentions of trying to save you, is just some little crazy person. It’s no worse than a kid saying that Batman is going to beat you up so you’d better be careful.
You intentionally picked things you knew the kid might not know didn’t exist. It makes no sense for you have done so in order to try and convince the kid. If the kid thought Santa or the Tooth Fairy existed, it would only serve to hurt your argument. The only reason to bring it up is exactly what you’ve said here. You wanted to get back at the adult by hurting the kid. That you can’t comprehend that this is wrong boggles the mind on so many levels, it’s ridiculous.
Let me spell it out for you: IT IS WRONG TO HURT SOMEONE ELSE TO GET BACK AT SOMEONE YOU ARE MAD AT. This is not something where there is some sort of divide between atheists and theists. This is part of the consensus morality. The fact that you don’t think it is wrong just means that you are an asshole.
And, unlike Guin, I won’t be backing down, because I’ve dealt with your kind before. Nothing works on you but a direct frontal assault. Nothing works but to make you feel bad, as processing the hurt of others is beyond you.
If you think I’m being mean to you, stop being a human vagina to little kids.
No, you shut up, Troppus.
~no fan of Guin
The “little kid” is being used as a tool to shield the real, malevolent user of that tool from any kind of meaningful assault. You don’t argue with a little kid, you don’t want to disappoint a little kid, so you have to stand there and take anything your sworn enemy has decided to dish out to you, and listen politely to it because it’s not coming from a grownup, it’s coming from a poor defenseless little kid.
Fuck that. If you want to talk to me in an offensive way to which my natural and reasonable response is “Fuck you. Get out of my fucking face and eat shit and die” but you need to put your little kid between you and me so I feel ashamed to give me natural and reasonable response, then guess what? Your widdle kid is going to have his day ruined, if I’m any good at doing what I do, and I am. And I’m not only going to feel good about it, I’m going to feel doubly good knowing that you and that fucking ninny Guin are going “Tut-tut.”
I’m still hoping that someone will provide some examples of the arrogance that atheists are so wont to show. So far, my fears that it is the act of expressing atheism that makes us arrogant have not really been allayed.
As for the anecdote with the child - no, delighting in causing him pain is obviously wrong. A sincere expression of your views? Great! Doing so with consideration for his age and innocence? Even better? Being vindictive, getting his guardian back and taking pleasure in causing him pain? Childish and weak.
Easy solution: don’t use your kid as a shield in a discussion between two adults.
Alternate solution: Don’t delight in hurting children.
If you recognize that a child is being used as a pawn, then “Ha ha, I took out your pawn” is a childish response.
You’re just encouraging them to keep using their children as pawns. “YES!!! I got the door slammed in my face alla time before I thought of this brilliant gambit, and now–SUCCESS! Half the atheists I talk to are sentimental idiots who absorb any shit I fling at 'em so long as I use my kid as my mouthpiece! Score!! And tell all your friends. THIS WORKS!!”
With me, not so much.
I would imagine the % is about the same as arrogant Christians, or any other belief or way of life!
If you cannot separate expressing your views calmly and politely from taking pleasure in hurting a child, you’re fucked up. You can do the one without the other, and your emotional joy at causing pain to a child will have no bearing on the child’s caregiver’s future behavior.
All you’re doing is introducing a second mindless agenda-driven moron who doesn’t actually have any regard for the child’s welfare into the equation.
I’m hoping that after three or four kids fucked up for life (but probably better off than spending it as fundy zombies), he decides maybe it’s safer to leave his kids at home. It’s a tough call, I know, and I respect you for opting out of it. I just don’t agree with your tactic’s effectiveness.
Plus my way pisses **Guinnie **off. In times of uncertainty, that outcome is, I know for sure, a positive one.
Look at it this way: You are literally making a “Think of the children!” argument. Doesn’t that tell you how fundamentally wrong your argument must be?
No. This tells me you are fundamentally not understanding the point, and fundamentally hanging on to the element of having been pleased that you caused a child pain.
Imagine it this way - say that the other adult put the child up to fighting you (and for some reason you were not able to simply avoid engaging the child). Would it cause you pleasure to physically best the child and make the child cry?
In what way is the child actually harmed by this anyway?
As long as the person expresses their views calmly the fact that the kid cries about it is pretty incidental. I’ve got two myself (5 and 7) they’ll cry at the drop of a hat about me not allowing them enough soy sauce for their rice.
Seems a stretch to suggest that they’ll be traumatised about it. When they get over it (in about five minutes) they’ll be left with some questions to ask themselves and some clarification to seek from the parent. Ultimately they will have exposed to someone who calmly and clearly states that they don’t believe in god, doesn’t think there is a god and equates it alongside santa and the easter bunny ( I agree). Which is a valuable lesson for the little bugger if you ask me.
Is the kid kind of funny looking?
Only when he is crying, which makes it harder not to find his pain amusing.
Personally I’d restrain the child and let them know that violence is a stupid and thoughtless way of behaving. If they cry about that BFD.
“pleasure” is a strange way of phrasing it but if I thought they’d learn a valuable lesson from it then that’d be positive thing yes.