(November 10, 2017 at 3:48 pm)Aegon Wrote:(November 10, 2017 at 3:37 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Also, I haven't been "taught" anything about atheists. Take the assertions about me out of option A, and i'd choose it.
I vehemently disagree with the idea that you can safely assume the personality type of somebody just by a label. I mean, yeah, there are exceptions; I think I could assume a thing or two about, say, an ISIS fighter's personality. But people are fucking complex, and it is their life experience that shapes them, not belief in God or opinion on abortion. So to assume things based on whether somebody is "atheist" or "Christian" or "liberal" or "conservative" ticks me off. And so many people do it to the label they see as opposite their own. It promotes divisiveness. And then, the FUNNIEST (or saddest) thing is that, when, say, a liberal generalizes conservatives, the conservative does it to the liberal with the excuse that "they did it to me first!" Grow up you big goddamn baby.
So that's why I want Neo to clarify his post. Because I have no clue what the fuck your typical atheist or your typical Christians are supposed to "act like," and I'd love to be enlightened.
Oh, my post wasn't directed towards you. It was in response to the oroginal thread post.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh
