John Larkin wrote in
:

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:55:54 -0500, Kris Krieger
wrote:

John Larkin wrote in
m:

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 15:58:56 -0500, Kris Krieger
wrote:
[snip]

So, without hard data, although I of course cannot make any sort of
valid claim your impression/opinion/experience (since you
expereinced it, not me), I am nonetheless compelled to doubt words
like "most"/"the majority" in terms of whether there is a higher
percentage of "evil *******s" so to speak among one or another given
belief system.
I suspect that, since pure atheists are still rather rare, it might
be
that they stick out in your memory more strongly, and the rotten one's
more strongly still.

- K.


Read "Who Really Cares?"

Um, if you don't care about responses/input, why do you bother
posting...? More to the point, if you don't care about input, why
should people care enough to read what you write?


As far as the USA goes, look at the red-state/blue-state maps, and
maps of religious tendencies, and maps of charitable donations per
capita, and maps of violent crime, and maps of volunteerism... all
easily available on the web. Interesting correlations.

John


I think you missed my point, but since you say that you don't care,
there is no reason for me to waste my time trying to clarify it.

When did I say that I don't care? And about what?

Maybe I misinterpreted "Who Really Cares?" - the way I perceived it was "I
read this as falling into teh category of "Who Really Cares?". THat was
confusing to me, because I was confused as to why soemone would post if he
didn't care about responses. ((I fully admot that I have some
communication glitches - I'm told that's part of the Asperger's.))

If I screwed up, than you have my apologies and a request to please clarify
what you meant (since, if what I read was not what you meant, then I
definitely *did* miss your meaning - and it's highly likely that when you
do explain, I'll smack my head and say DOH!...)





I give people the benefit of the doubt, and I tried to respond to your
posts in a civil "informal discussion" manner. But I'm glad you at
least had the decency to tell me that you don't care about that and
don't care about what I have to say, so that I can avoid wasing my time.

You noted a lack of "hard data", and I suggested some ways to find it.

I didn't say anything about you; you're the one who swung personal
here.


I didn't intend it to be personal, tho' I'm not going to argue that it
wouldn't come across that way. Mostly, I was confused.

Since what you said was obviously not the same thing as what I heard (well,
so to speak), I'm going back an recap - you mentioned your thoughts
decent bahavior, and correlation with believers and atheists. I mentioned
the possibility that it *might* be that the unusual (atheists) and negative
(bad behavior) stuck out in your memory because of various factors
invilving how the mind/memory is thought to work, with the caveat that I
can't and woudln't try to say as a fact that you didn't expereince what you
did becasue your expereinces are nto mine to dismiss, sicne i don't knwo
what your expereinces have been (any mroe than you know what mine have
been). I was expecting something that might illustrate your experiences -
I obviously did not understand your response (my bad...), was therefore
confused, and responded based upon that confusion...

embarassment
Er, could you explain what you meant...?