How do you respond to this statement?

[Stan]

Honestly, even if religious people are in power, as long as they're not infringing on other people's rights I don't see why that's an issue. I don't go around telling my boss, who is higher up than me, that I'm atheist. And he doesn't tell me he's Christian. We know these things because of some basic differences in 'after school' activities, but we don't have to go crowing about it. It's not important to the world of accounting. Nor should it be for any other profession.

So you are saying the religious people who are in power do not infing on other people's rights? If what you mean is you don't feel impacted by them, which even if that was true, it'd still be egoistic.

I'm not saying run around saying you are an atheist. I responded to a quote saying "why talk to religious people?".

---

Religious beliefs shouldnt be kept to yourself, since the religious people are the ones usually in places of power. If they were kept a "secret" then we'd still be in the medieval ages and by saying that you also dissaprove the actions of great atheists, like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens etc, whom only trying/tried to achieve is human progress and scepticism.

"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" -Voltaire

I'm not saying scientists or people in power who are atheists should not discuss atheism. I'm saying we're not scientists or leaders here. We're average people, who socialize with other average people. And in our everyday lives, I don't need to know anybody's religion, and nobody needs to know mine.

Dear beloved Richard Dawkins suggests that atheists should be proud, not apologetic, stressing that atheism is evidence of a healthy, independent mind. He hopes that the more atheists identify themselves, the more the public will become aware of just how many people actually hold these views, thereby reducing the negative opinion of atheism among the religious majority.

Oh and btw, scientists and leaders are average people too.

[CleanShavenJesus]

I'm not saying scientists or people in power who are atheists should not discuss atheism. I'm saying we're not scientists or leaders here. We're average people, who socialize with other average people. And in our everyday lives, I don't need to know anybody's religion, and nobody needs to know mine.

Dear beloved Richard Dawkins suggests that atheists should be proud, not apologetic, stressing that atheism is evidence of a healthy, independent mind. He hopes that the more atheists identify themselves, the more the public will become aware of just how many people actually hold these views, thereby reducing the negative opinion of atheism among the religious majority.

Oh and btw, scientists and leaders are average people too.

I think you misunderstand me. I'm just talking about everyday life. I don't give a shit if you're Catholic, I don't give a shit if you're Muslim, and I don't give a shit if you're atheist either. You know that saying that has been going around for a while, "Religion is like a penis, it's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around," that's basically what I'm trying to say. This isn't some sort of mass protest Don't make it bigger or deeper than it is.

And no, scientists and leaders are not average people. They are heard and listened to by a great number of people. It is their duty to speak of things in which they feel need to be spoken. Dawkins would like to educate the world on atheism. He is an atheist. He speaks of atheism. Makes sense.

[Faith No More]

Anyway, there's a rather famous journalistic photo of a vulture waiting for a bone thin, collapsed child to die so it can do what nature does. The photographer who took the picture continued on his way, and was eaten up with guilt over it.

I have no idea how photographic journalists deal with the things they do, because they are not always humanitarians or in possession of the necessary supplies to help everyone they come across.

Well, I believe that guy coped by killing himself.

[Stan]

Dear beloved Richard Dawkins suggests that atheists should be proud, not apologetic, stressing that atheism is evidence of a healthy, independent mind. He hopes that the more atheists identify themselves, the more the public will become aware of just how many people actually hold these views, thereby reducing the negative opinion of atheism among the religious majority.

Oh and btw, scientists and leaders are average people too.

I think you misunderstand me. I'm just talking about everyday life. I don't give a shit if you're Catholic, I don't give a shit if you're Muslim, and I don't give a shit if you're atheist either. You know that saying that has been going around for a while, "Religion is like a penis, it's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around," that's basically what I'm trying to say. This isn't some sort of mass protest Don't make it bigger or deeper than it is.

And no, scientists and leaders are not average people. They are heard and listened to by a great number of people. It is their duty to speak of things in which they feel need to be spoken. Dawkins would like to educate the world on atheism. He is an atheist. He speaks of atheism. Makes sense.

We need to get out of our closets, simple as that to just make an impact. Mr. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, he's not an educator. He speaks of atheism as many of us should in our everyday life. My opinion.

[thesummerqueen]

So you are saying the religious people who are in power do not infing on other people's rights? If what you mean is you don't feel impacted by them, which even if that was true, it'd still be egoistic.

I'm not saying run around saying you are an atheist. I responded to a quote saying "why talk to religious people?".

No, I was not saying they never do. I was saying that if they don't, then it's not an issue. I don't think there was a single egoistic reality about my statement. I merely responded to the implication that they need to be confronted.

Anyway, there's a rather famous journalistic photo of a vulture waiting for a bone thin, collapsed child to die so it can do what nature does. The photographer who took the picture continued on his way, and was eaten up with guilt over it.

I have no idea how photographic journalists deal with the things they do, because they are not always humanitarians or in possession of the necessary supplies to help everyone they come across.

Well, I believe that guy coped by killing himself.

I still haven't looked up the story because I'm a putz, but you could be right (joking or not).

[Faith No More]

I still haven't looked up the story because I'm a putz, but you could be right (joking or not).

Not joking. I had never heard of the guy before, but someone brought him up on a mental health forum I was on.

Since I'm super bored, I'll do the digging for you...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Carter

On 27 July 1994 Carter drove his way to the Braamfonte near the Field and Study Centre, an area where he used to play as a child, and took his own life by taping one end of a hose to his pickup truck’s exhaust pipe and running the other end to the passenger-side window. He died of carbon monoxide poisoning, aged 33. Portions of Carter's suicide note read:

"I am depressed ... without phone ... money for rent ... money for child support ... money for debts ... money!!! ... I am haunted by the vivid memories of killings and corpses and anger and pain ... of starving or wounded children, of trigger-happy madmen, often police, of killer executioners ... I have gone to join Ken if I am that lucky."[7]

[thesummerqueen]

Yeah, that'd be the one.

Another photographer friend told me that story when we were discussing journalistic photography over dinner. It's not an easy life.

[SmarterthanU]

god IS FOR WOMENCHIL;DREN

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I usually respond to the first query by pointing out that it is needful to frame the question prior to deciding whether or not it is unanswerable.

My typical response to the second question is a loud, wet fart.

Boru

[The Meritocrat]

"There are many questions we wont have answers to."

This means they believe in a "God" that will keep them ignorant to the secrets of existence. What kind of a paternal figure is this? I would teach everything i know to my son or daughter. Yet "God" prefers that his children remain dumb and complacent forever, he revels on the fact that he is superior to others, hence he is no god at all.

"I have faith that god sees the bigger plan".

He sees it alright - death, famine, destruction, poverty, war, greed, stupidity, racism, etc - it's all over the news. Is this what you would call a DIVINE plan?