Hey, Stannum-

You didn't display any pride or hatred; you were asking for an opposite, right?  It's a language question.  I don't assume that you are an atheist or that you are particularly interested in being hateful.  I'll look at your post again, but I didn't see a first person reference, so why all the the "I" questions?

I'll try to answer your questions as they come; next time try numbering them if you want each one answered.

The superiority is in the non-sharing of whatever it was that made this anti-proselytizer an atheist.

A.  The proselyte thinks that he has recieved the truth and feels compelled to share it out of concern for the other's fate.

B.  The opposite thinks that he has recieved the opposite truth (enlightement) and feels compelled not to share it out of lack of concern for the other's fate.

You could change the ending to 'out of concern for the other's temporal fate', while changing the first to 'eternal fate', but most proselytes would say that sharing the truth is not only for eternal, but also temporal benefit.

Here's a little analogy, let's see how well it represents what I'm trying to say:  Regarding Santa Claus, if you receive the knowledge that there is none, yet allow others to believe, you are doing so presumably so that they can enjoy the 'fun' part of Xmas.  No harm in fantasy, right?  But if that belief persists into adulthood, someone must eventually share the truth with this kid, lest we have some 23-year-old not paying his rent, trusting in Santa to drop the money down the chimney.   All analogies limp, I know.  The Santa topic is a side issue (I didn't teach the lie to my child).

Old Man Gordon wrote:

Hey, Stannum- You didn't display any pride or hatred; you were asking for an opposite, right?  It's a language question.  I don't assume that you are an atheist or that you are particularly interested in being hateful.  I'll look at your post again, but I didn't see a first person reference, so why all the the "I" questions? I'll try to answer your questions as they come; next time try numbering them if you want each one answered. The superiority is in the non-sharing of whatever it was that made this anti-proselytizer an atheist. A.  The proselyte thinks that he has recieved the truth and feels compelled to share it out of concern for the other's fate. B.  The opposite thinks that he has recieved the opposite truth (enlightement) and feels compelled not to share it out of lack of concern for the other's fate. You could change the ending to 'out of concern for the other's temporal fate', while changing the first to 'eternal fate', but most proselytes would say that sharing the truth is not only for eternal, but also temporal benefit. Here's a little analogy, let's see how well it represents what I'm trying to say:  Regarding Santa Claus, if you receive the knowledge that there is none, yet allow others to believe, you are doing so presumably so that they can enjoy the 'fun' part of Xmas.  No harm in fantasy, right?  But if that belief persists into adulthood, someone must eventually share the truth with this kid, lest we have some 23-year-old not paying his rent, trusting in Santa to drop the money down the chimney.   All analogies limp, I know.  The Santa topic is a side issue (I didn't teach the lie to my child).

I do hope that you do not misunderstand the reasons why I am not apparently responding.  My submit button is broken on this (among others ) thread.

Old Man Gordon, I know that we have issues that we will never agree upon but I am certainly not interested in discussing anything with a yes man and I suspect that you are of similar ilk.  Sheep bore me and you do not bore me so you can not be a sheep nor are you a bell whether and this combination I find amazingly refreshing.

In all sincerity, thanks for giving me the gift of your time to debate me on even a subject as slight as this.  I know that it will never happen, I suffer from the tyranny of distance suffered by all Aussies,  but I think that I would genuinely enjoy to meet you and share something of what caused you to become Old Man Gordon.  I hope that doesn't sound too sucky or insincere.  I do not understand smilies and I have no other way of trying to ensure that this specific post of mine contains no negativity or hidden snipe at you.

See ya

Robert

Old Man Gordon wrote:

Sure, Stannum, I understand.  I have rethought some of the logic of the label.  I often use analogies to help me see the other side of something.  Here's what I came up with: A child’s dog must be put to sleep for some reason. The parents invent a lie to spare the child’s feelings, the usual “We took the dog to live on a farm.” The child has gained comfort in the belief in the lie. I still feel that this is condescending, or patronizing. Depending on the age of the child, and their psychological ability to cope with death. In this case, the proselytizer would spread the truth, “The dog is dead.” What would the anti-proselytizer do? Sit back and let the child take comfort in the lie? This, along with the case of Santa, are cases in which the truth is absolute and determined. If, however, you think the parents are lying, but really don’t have proof, then you are a skeptic. You keep silent because it is not profitable for anyone for you to insert your opinion into someone else’s affairs, which might be more appropriate for the opposite that you are looking for...silent skeptic.

The parents do not have to invent any lie to spare the kid's feelings.

You already said that lie: "the dog must be put to sleep". Yeah. To eternal sleep. Speaking about condescendence...

Thanks, Sara, for enlightening my obviously jaded sense of morality.  Now that I know that euphemisms are lies, I will be sure to never use them.  Is sarcasm still ok?

omg