6 ms·

> "He is now a divorced professor at a technical college with no credit cards and extremely uninteresting finances, largely because the bulk of his paychecks ar

• notahacker 12y ago
  The other reason he can be so flippant is that he's an ex-Mormon who walked out on his family and church because he'd taken up sleeping around and atheism, so from his point of view the worst damage to his social standing has already been inflicted.
  • hawkice 12y ago
    I am intrigued by the "nothing to hide" = "nothing to lose" equivalence. "Nothing to lose" has always been a primarily mental phenomenon, but I think this clears away some of the potential dishonesty around claims like "if you have nothing to worry about, you shouldn't mind if the government reads your emails". Possible that they mean it, but I there are probably quite a few who do not understand what it means when they say it.
  • prawn 12y ago
    Do you really "take up atheism" or do you just not go to church, etc? I don't feel like I've taken it up, it's just not something I worry about or act on. Rest of your point stands, obviously.
    • deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    • frobozz 12y ago
      It depends on the nature of your faith beforehand, and your lack of faith afterwards. If, as a child, you were just dragged along to church by your parents at Christmas and Easter, then when you grow up and realise you don't believe, so stop going, that's one thing, and there's nothing really "taken up" about it. If you were a regular adult churchgoer of your own volition, perhaps with a lay position within the church, or even part of the clergy, then apostasy, is a strong act that might be called "taking up" your later position, even if the later position is a lack of one. Similarly, if you become a normal atheist who simply doesn't believe in any gods, then there's nothing to take up. However, if you become an evangelical, proselytising atheist like Richard Dawkins, then you've certainly taken it up.
    • gridspy 12y ago
      If you simply don't believe in god, you're agnostic. If you actively believe that there is no god, you're atheist.
      • collyw 12y ago
        Actively believing there is no god, without proof of his/her/it's non existence is as evidence based as religion.
        • Thimothy 12y ago
          Not arguing if this statement is right or wrong, but I think you should know that your phrase is highly controversial and the beginning of thousands flame wars through the internet. Maybe you should avoid it unless it is completely relevant to the topic at hand.
        • nitrogen 12y ago
          Not believing in Santa Claus, Zeus, Imhotep, Peter Pan, or The Green Lantern without proof of their non-existence is etc. etc.? The burden of proof lies with the claim of existence. In the absence of any evidence, nonexistence is the default assumption. Yet disbelief in all of these things is based on evidence, since we have looked in the places people used to believe they lived and/or domains they were believed to control, andand they weren't there.
          • mmalone 12y ago
            How are you defining God? Have we looked for God in all of the places that people believe God lives / controls? The universe either came from somewhere or has always existed... If I define God as a "the thing that created the universe" how would you prove or disprove God's existence?
            • nitrogen 12y ago
              If I define God as a "the thing that created the universe"... ...then you would have to justify that definition before expecting anyone to accept, prove, or disprove it. FWIW I was once a believer and frequently associate with believers, so I have some experience in the matter and have given it considerable thought.