dangin

In Carrie's defense, when I first converted away from christianity, I still had a lot of christian baggage. Then I got really angry at it for fooling me so long. Now I'm indifferent to it (except for fundies) I think a lot of us go through this sort of thing.

Vylo

I have a very mixed group of friends, from die hard atheists, to fundi born again christians that have tried to convert me. I judge people based on who they are on the whole. If they are kind, humorous, etc. Some of the smartest people I have met are born again, granted that group also seems to contain the opposite side of the intellegence spectrum as well. I wouldn't cut myself off from christian people, just rather be wary of them, be cautious. I personally enjoy having religious discussions with many of my friends, and some of them enjoy to as well.

(BTW, I don't know about the percentage of atheists in other areas, but in new jersey there seems to be a very decent number, and an even larger number of agnostics).

kkholiday

I can understand that. But it doesn't seem that its the Christianity thats the central issue. I may be off the mark, but Carrie's anger sounds too personal to be caused by what someone else believes. It seemed as if she was more angry (ashamed?) that she used to be a Christian and/or not question her beliefs etc., etc. Maybe it just reminds her of attitudes and beliefs that she used to have that now she rejects and doesn't want associated with or even to be reminded of. That makes more sense to me.

yguy

Why would that bother you?

Don't many Christians think non-Christians believe stupid things, and are angry at them the same way you are at Christians?

If you really want to be different from them, drop the anger. Otherwise there isn't a dime's worth of difference between you.

Ensign Steve

(I say "you" alot in the following paragraph. It is the "royal you" because I think "one" doesn't sound good. So don't think I'm singling you out. )

I'm not talking about offering somebody a job or admission to a college. I'm talking about freely choosing to be friends with somebody. How is it immoral for somebody to choose their friends based upon any criteria they choose? I'm not saying that you should snub or be rude to anybody who is a Christian. I'm just saying you don't have to be their friend if you don't want to. Why should any body be morally obligated to be friends with people who they don't want to be around? Friendship is a very personal choice. Maybe you won't get the best possible mix of friends if you are prejudiced, but that's your loss.

While I'm thinking about this, I'm trying to turn this around and look at it from the point of view of somebody who doesn't like gays. If somebody thinks that my lifestyle was wrong and disagrees with what I do and am, why should they be obligated to give me a chance to be their friend? Would I even want to be their friend? Probably not. Now deny me a job or some rights based upon that, and I'll be pissed off. But don't be my friend?! Please, my feelings won't be hurt. There are plenty of people who do like me. And there are plenty of people who like Christians, too, so why should the person in the OP be morally obligated to give them a chance?

Keith

I grant you that I need 'society' to survive but 1) why do I have a moral duty to sign-on to this, or any "social contract" and accept the moral precepts of my culture, and 2) why must a person endear themself to society? Is it just so I can feel like I'm being "fair" (instead of obtaining the rewards of society without actually being of similar attitude).

Does this "social contract" allow us the moral right to eat animals? I'm bringing up these moral questions because of the whole question whether or not belief in God is stupid. Over time, I couldn't pretend that I was a freethinker anymore. I couldn't just humbly accept some alledged "social contract" just so I could feel like I was being fair. I needed a better reason to accept that certain things are morally wrong. Not simply continue blindly following the crowd.

brighid

You misunderstand my meaning. I do not think one should be morally compelled to be friends with anyone, and hence why I stated that one should be able to assosciate with whomever one desires. However, one is not morally justified in feeling angry, and generalizing a whole group of people because of the prejudicial idea that ALL people of that group are stupid, ignorant, etc. You don't have to be friends with them and it is probably better that you aren't friends with those people, but your hate and angry cannot be morally jusitifed as Carrie is attempting.

Therefore I don't feel she is morally obligated to do anything with regard to making friendships, but that she cannot morally justify her anger and hatred for ALL Christians and use this as a valid basis for disassociating with ALL of them.

Brighid

Ensign Steve

Doesn't it depend on the group? I mean, would one be morally justified in feeling angry and generalizing a whole group of Nazis? Or child-molestors? I'm sure there are plenty of Nazis who are intelligent and have a great sense of humor and are fun to shop with, but I still feel completely justified to prejudging anybody who identifies themselves as part of that group, based upon what the group represents.

dangin

I never said you need to endear yourself to society, you simply must not alienate yourself from it. The "easiest" path through life for a social animal is when said animal has access to the society from which they draw benefit. If you are antisocial and your neighbors know it, it is not difficult to understand that they won't jump to help you as fast (if at all) as they would the neighbor who is their trusted friend. If you are convicted of a felony this will affect you within society even more. (it will affect your ability to vote, get a job, and obtain a quality spouse, which will then further affect your ability to raise quality offspring)


Of course, animals are not part of our society. People who slaughter pigs all day don't get shunned by society for providing food. The pigs don't care for them too much, but so what?

The best reason to understand something is wrong, is does it help me or hurt me?

Before you jump all over this and say that "hedonism" or "self interest" means people can steal, maim, and kill to help themselves, please understand that I am talking about enlightened self interest. Working a 40 hour a week job is easier and more profitable than a life of crime. Bad criminals go to jail (see felony above), good criminals work just as hard as regular citizens and still might go to jail.

Enlightened self interest means that one recognizes that the best life for oneself, as a social creature, is to maintain a good standing within and full access to their own society. This includes not stealing, murdering, and raping all the way down to not bouncing checks, and maintaining a good credit rating.

Get smart, live life for yourself, and you'll find yourself in harmony with everyone else anyway. (except the antisocial, and they're making their own beds)



BTW, if this keeps up, we are going to need to start a different thread on this. Which will be about the 10th thread about "The morality of Prudence" that I have participated in here in the last three years. But you're a newby, so I will gladly enlighten you to the rules our ape ancestors started, that we are still living by today.

Mageth

Don't many Christians think non-Christians believe stupid things

Actually, they think non-Christians don't believe stupid things.

(sorry, couldn't resist)