It has resonance in long cultural association with myths and folk-wisdom. The symbology is generally recognized, and carried over into dreams and mass entertainment, and so they're shared by a great many people.
As a psychological tool, though, the element of chance renders it meaningless. If the 'seeker' were to spread out the deck, face up, and rearrange the cards in a meaningful pattern, it might be as useful as the I Ching: open to the reader's interpretation.

As fortunetelling, it's exactly as useful as tea leaves or palm-reading: just for fun.

Just a note - the moderators are generally helpful in stopping people from shanghaiing a discussion if the original poster asks them to. — T Clark

Yes. I simply meant that "That's the wrong question" is often a way of changing to the subject, or turning a discussion in direction other than the OP intended.
And, Yes, I am generally approaching this from the POV of tact and good order.

Loaded questions, double-barrelled questions, complex questions—all could be considered fallacious. — NOS4A2

Yes, and they all can be analyzed or broken down into logical components, without outright rejection. If I consider a question unproductive, I don't respond to it.

they — universeness

Not just they; all of you. Faith in deities, faith in science, faith in humanity, faith in Good... all the same.

That question ("why am I me"), only after extensive reflection, seems to be the wrong question. But asking the right question first requires identifying that the prior question is wrong, say by identifying premises it implies. — noAxioms

So, if someone asks such a question, you don't need to answer it. If you do want to discuss some aspect of the same subject from the perspective of [what you think is] the right question, you don't need to start by antagonizing the original poster by telling him "You asked the wrong question." You could, instead, say "Shouldn't we ask first....?" or "Can you identify the premises you used?"
I usually say "I don't know what you mean by...." so they can either clarify their position or ignore me and go on their own way, in which case, I have the option of accepting their vague premise or exiting the discussion.

Are you being self-referential here or just making a general statement of opinion about the approach of many or most people? — universeness

A general statement of most people of faith.

Am I reading too much into this? — bert1

Yes, but I enjoyed reading your take on it.

It sometimes annoys me, especially when it appears to be a ploy to change the subject or the perspective. I'd like to tell such respondents: If you want to ask "the right" question, go ask it in your thread. If you don't like the way this one was asked, either don't respond, or ask for clarification.

On the other side, I have often asked for clarification only to get further obfuscation, so that's not always fruitful. One can't always stay on topic, either, because conversations branch off and meander all over the place. Maybe some forbearance the vagaries of other posters is required for peace of mind.

So, no 'good' people were involved in the defeated of the Germans, Japanese, Italians etc in WW 2? — universeness

Good people are always involved, whether they want to be or not, and they are usually forced to do bad things. If you choose not to know how many good people are swept up in the actions of 'bad' countries, or what the governments and armies of 'good' nations do in war, I'm sure you're happier.

You are just engaging in superfluous wordplay Vera.

Apparently.

Otherwise, I stick around for the company and the short stories... — Noble Dust

Like being Doctor Who's sidekick for the running?

How come fascism was so soundly smashed then, when those who supported it tried to take over the planet? — universeness

Fascism is alive and well. The only thing that was smashed was a nascent empire, like all the empires before that tried to take over the planet. Some win small, some win big; they eventually flounder; some lose before they get any traction. But the aspiring German empire was smashed not by good people doing good things; it was defeated in a bloody, brutal, wasteful, horrible war, by other nations using the very same method as the aggressor.

Good people can use nefarious people against nefarious people. — universeness

And then they themselves become nefarious.

I have had the 'were the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs better than a mainland invasion of Japan' debate, many times. — universeness

Did you side with the scientifically elegant bombs?

So, It's up to all humans to decide if they want to base their personal values on the inputs, processes and outputs of theism (Including monks), pop-stars, psychopaths or science. — universeness

That's not the choice for values. That's a simplistic depiction of a long and complex moral development.

On the other hand, Jesus has a good nose for pious fraud, so last-minute piety might not wash either. — Bitter Crank

He was okay with the better-late-than-never kind of salvation in the NT. So is Muhammad, come to think of it. I knew a Muslim man once who was quite sure he could drink alcohol and neglect his prayers until the age of 40, but then he'd have to reform.

The trick is to have a close encounter with the grim reaper and live to tell about it. — Bitter Crank

Been there, done that, got the plastic mesh mask... and, on the whole, I'd rather grow tomatoes.

My avatar is of a pig called Charlotte. — Shawn

A closeup would be appreciated. She looks like a goer.

Me, I'm the next thing to a shut-in since Covid, which has been stomping around our streets for a long time now, keeping me from the casual social encounters that normally brighten my hum-drum life.

I generally frequent philosophy forums, not because I'm a huge fan of Philosophy, but because they usually offer discussions on human affairs, thought, belief and behaviour, all of which interest me. Plus, the participants are mostly pretty bright. I like that.

There may be a kind of fatalism involved: I'm going to die young anyway; why should i deny myself these pleasures while they last?
I did feel that way for a few years in my 20's. I grew responsible and all careful all that, once I had other people to consider, but I was still astonished to be approaching the millennium. Now it's just, ho-hum, lets see how long it lasts.

I concede, that's true. Some people are able to accomplish much with citizen action. And, quite evidently, anyone can be president.

And, as to the complexity of the slave issue....?

We each know what we mean by it. But there are factors that seem more more nearly universal.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1613092/
Good documentary.

Faith: a belief held in the absence of evidence.

“Hope springs eternal in the human breast;
Man never Is, but always To be blest.
The soul, uneasy, and confin'd from home,
Rests and expatiates in a life to come.”

― Alexander Pope, An Essay on Man

democracy is far more than choosing leaders. It is also about being one of them. — Athena

As in influencing policy? Seriously, which farm-hand, miner or railway porter ever got within sniffing distance of active leadership?

Democracy is rule by reason, not authority over the people. — Athena

As an idea, that sounds simple. In practice... not so much, and that's as true in ancient Athens as modern USA.

What is important is the wisdom to keep things in harmony with the universe — Athena

Sounds nice. What does it mean in daily life?

The slavery issue was a complex one — Athena

What's complex about it? Kidnapping people is wrong. Torture is wrong. Rape is wrong. Human trafficking is wrong. Keeping people in captivity is wrong. Selling children is wrong. Forcing people to live wretched lives of labour in order to enrich other people is wrong.
But it makes money.... lots of lovely money to endow libraries and carry out extensive horticultural experiments and donate art collections and all those other fine civic contributions to the betterment of one's own kind for which grateful towns erect statues to dead rich guys.

Jefferson was influenced by the reasoning the enlightenment and I think it is important to hold a better understanding of his struggle and what the enlightenment has to do with opposition to slavery. — Athena

Nothing. No European nation in the 15th to 17th century had any qualms about subjugating peoples who were less well armed than they were.
It's not about Reason. It's about profit vs. conscience.
The Quakers saw this quite clearly... I wonder why all those sophisticated, educated, bewigged and worldly gentlemen did not.

I'm surprised no one asked "What do you mean by happiness?" So I'll ask it of all of you who so far responded. — Mikie

General satisfaction with one's life, work, environment and relationships. I'm unhappy about the world at large, anxious about old age and physical frailty, frustrated at what I can't do anymore and disgruntled at the aches and pains. But I have a safe place to sleep, a solid marriage; we can still talk, laugh and enjoy things together; we have a comfortable enough home in beautiful countryside; we have enough material wealth for our needs, and we keep our minds and hands busy.

Mostly, yes.
Whatever may be going on out there, my personal life is good.

I wish you well.

didn't say that all do, or that anyone in particular does. — busycuttingcrap

Fine. I dislike being so often swept up in raid on Dawkins et al, just because I also call myself atheist.

Atheists can, and very often do, engage in debates or arguments, and so end up making claims. — busycuttingcrap

Then those atheists should support those claims. I don't know exactly who made what claims and how they justified it. All I claim is my own disbelief, the reasons for which and the reasoning behind which I have explained many times.
As far as I'm concerned, "proof" doesn't apply to narrative. I don't demand that anyone introdude me to their patron deity, or demonstrate salvation or prove that a man with with the head of a falcon called the world out of a water mass. I simply fail to be convinced by the narrative.
Also, I defend those who do believe the narrative, because i acknowledge that faith is subjective.
So, again: What is it I'm supposed to have claimed that requires proof?

But its a very minimalist description of what Science via scientists does and achieves and what potential it holds for the future of the human species. — universeness

I wasn't trying to describe anything. I was pointing out that
1. Humans use tools
2. Technology (the spawn of scientific discovery) and Religion (the spawn of spiritual yearning) both create tools for the use of humans.
3. All tools can be used for constructive and destructive purposes.

I have no faith in the potential and the future.

I mean, you seem to be suggesting that we cannot challenge that aspect of our nature. — universeness

We can challenge any aspect of our nature - individually. Affecting change in oneself is harder than just challenging, but we can all do it to some extent. Collectively, we can't do anything about human nature. In fact, we cannot do anything collectively. We can negotiate and compromise about external matters, or we can fight over them, and we can certainly affect one another's psyche with the clever tools made possible by science and religion.

I think we certainly can and indeed must and in doing so, help towards solving the many problems we face. — universeness

We created the problems. Whenever we solve one, we invariably create a new one. There is no end to the problems we make and solve and make and solve and make worldwithoutend... except that we now have the capability to end it ourselves rather than wait for the last judgment.

Hard to make peace whist you are actually under attack, socially, politically, economically, racially, culturally etc etc. I am still willing to try your way, if you have a cunning plan. — universeness

I don't. We came close to detente for a couple of decades of the 20th century, but there were then, as there always are, too many interests at stake: both reason and emotion are always monetized and weaponized (hateful modern vocabulary!) by somebody before most people come to their senses.

All that evil requires to thrive is for good people to do nothing. — universeness

Pious BS! Evil always wins, because it's not hampered by principles, scruples or shame. Its victories can be mitigated by good people, its teeth blunted a little, but good will never score a decisive victory.

You seem a bit pessimistic and might I be so bold as to suggest, slightly jaded at times and disappointed in your own species. — universeness

Just change 'a bit' to 'utterly' and you're right on the money. If I enjoyed being wet, I would go with the dolphins https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zfuU6uLwF8

Clarity/misinterpretation, it's up to both of us to achieve as much of the first and as little of the other as possible. — universeness

Which part of "humans use use tools... etc" is unclear?

My position is that science is our best chance to increase our: — universeness

Your hope is shared by many; I never disputed your 'position' and I believe that you are correct in some of those assumptions. But they have no effect on the fact that every tool can be used, and has been used for constructive and destructive purposes.

I don't think you can take that position and still be part of the solution and not part of the problem. — universeness

Fine. I'm part of the problem - we all are. There, for example, far too many of us for the planet to support. Both scientists and religionists have contributed to that problem. Both scientists and religionists have contributed to the means of carrying on conflict among people.
Pretending that half of our nature doesn't exist, or declaring that half of our nature shouldn't exist, leads to no solution... if it had, the problem would already be solved. But the 'problem' is humans, and that's insoluble - except, of course, for the Osterhagen Key.

I have no problem struggling with strong/confident/self assured theists or nefarious theists (or even nefarious scientists/politicians for that matter). — universeness

Nor have I. I've made as many enemies in that camp as in this, because the militants on both sides desire to win a war, and I believe the only win is peace.

Do you not feel a responsibility to be a source of help, encouragement etc for anyone who you think is a theist due to historical indoctrinatIon alone? — universeness

Responsibility, no: I didn't indoctrinate them. Sympathy, understanding and forbearance, yes. But then, I have those feelings also for theists who choose to remain in their faith, so long as they do no harm.

That tells us a lot about your judgement. — Banno

Does it? Then record this: I have not judged and never condemned anyone on hearsay.

Fun fact: Offering somebody the means of death is a big bad deal. Selling and donating weapons off mass destruction is international business.

I mentioned this case:"A Paralympic army veteran told stunned lawmakers in Canada when she claimed that a government official had offered to give her euthanasia equipment while fighting to have a wheelchair lift installed in her home" — Andrew4Handel

She claimed. OK. Did he force anything on her? So far, it doesn't sound like much of a crime.
But that's not what I was answering, was it? (Are her past occupation or present avocation significant to the case, or are they just thrown in for emotional effect?)

You are making things up here. — Andrew4Handel

Am I?

I want to live in a society that values human life and doesn't endorse or encourage suicide and devalues palliative health care — Andrew4Handel

This is in Canada — Andrew4Handel

I know that. Because after a long, arduous fight, in which many people suffered through years of litigation, against people who think they know better what is right for us than we do ourselves, we finally made assisted suicide - under stringent regulations - legal. What you cite is unlikely to have been legal - but nor was it lethal.

in the UK ...we have a Free health service.

No, you don't. You have a government-run universal health insurance scheme. It is very expensive, under attack from private enterprise, criticized from all directions, undersupported and overburdened - probably under just as much stress as ours.

The NHS is experiencing some of the most severe pressures in its 70-year history.

The cost-of-living crisis is compounding desperate conditions in the UK’s social care system, following the widespread collapse of care standards during the COVID pandemic, culminating from decades of privatisation and austerity cuts.

I used the US example, because they have more religious institutions than the UK or Canada, and we would expect to see more church supported elder care, but basically, we're all in the same deep doo-doo: too many old people, too many diseases, not enough resources.

People values are imposed on each other through democracy and when one persons values triumph another persons loses out. — Andrew4Handel

Not quite. If you win, I lose my autonomy; I become subject to your values, no longer free to make my own life decisions. If I win, you lose nothing except power over other people: you're free to do as you please with your life. That's why I have to fight you, even though I would much prefer not to.

Burden of proof is a social convention governing debates/arguments, so yes, in a sense, they are. — busycuttingcrap

]

Debates and arguments, yes. If one has made a claim, one should be able to support it.
Demanding that I prove why I don't believe something is not a debate.

It often seems to me that some atheists use the lack-theism definition as a way of getting out of having to meet their burden of proof — busycuttingcrap

Proof of what, exactly?
"People tell a story. I find that story implausible, so I don't believe it."
"You haven't proved that it's not true!"
And I maintain that it's not my job to prove or disprove it. It's somebody else's story.

There's not much hope to entertain when your pessimistic about things. That's just my experience with pessimism. — Shawn

Okay. But adaptive and maladiptive are relative to some norm or standard.

For me, your use of 'achieving desired ends' invokes a careless, thoughtless, selfish image of scientific advancement that lands somewhere around 'the end justifies the means,' impression for all scientific endeavours so far made. — universeness

I'm not responsible for the impression you form. I said

Humans use tools for good and for evil, wisely and stupidly, constructively and destructively.

and, yes, also carelessly, short-sightedly and selfishly.

For many, if not the vast majority of scientists, their reason for pursuing a particular field of science, is due to an overwhelming fascination with the field. — universeness

I never claimed otherwise. But they're not the ones who have the final decision over how their innovations will be applies and deployed. The ones cleverly devising a new and even more deadly missile do know what its purpose is; the ones fiddling with bacteria and circuitry probably don't. I say probably... but I'm not sure of the percent probability.

Scientific research, is for me, far more laudable than any theocratic or theosophical endeavour. — universeness

Yup, you've made that clear.

I am surprised you don't agree — universeness

I do agree. I just refuse to deny or condemn the other half of human nature.

Do you really feel targeted? — universeness

Not mad keen on target as verb or a department store. The number of projectile weapons on the surface of this rock, anyone can be in a kill-zone any time, without the shooter/bomber/launcher even knowing they're there. Anyone can be individually hunted, for all kinds of reasons. Waving a bloody great rag with some political or military -- or, hell, even sport-related -- significance just renders one more shootable.

Perhaps the USA is still a stronghold for them but globally, they are losing imo. — universeness

iyd
Militant Religious Movements: Rise and Impact

You just have to know what switches to turn on. — universeness

I do. It's on a shiny silver keg.

What are your examples here? — Andrew4Handel

Lots. But I'm not having that debate again.

I want to live in a society that values human life and doesn't endorse or encourage suicide and devalues palliative health care — Andrew4Handel

And I want to live in a compassionate society that helps people as long as they can be helped, then lets them go when they decide it's time for them to go. I do not believe in the abstract "value of human life". Life has value to the one [not exclusively humans] living it and the ones who are affected by it. I do believe in the autonomy an dignity of individuals.

That's why we have this struggle against religious politics. I do not wish to impose my values on you, but you want to impose yours on all of society.
You want old people not to feel like a burden, but who is supposed to carry them? The government that enacts laws against assisted suicide does not provide quality homes or care for old people; allows them, quite often, to be neglected and abused in the institutions to which they're relegated when they can no longer pay their way in society at large.

The US long-term care system — such as it is — is broken. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are on waiting lists for home-based care. More than 40 million people report that they have cared for a loved one over 50 without any pay in the last year. The United States ranks near the bottom of developed economies in the number of older adults who receive long-term care at home. Meanwhile, America’s nursing homes are staffed by overwhelmed and underpaid workers, and for-profit takeovers of those facilities have led to worse care for patients.

It's a lot easier to want than to solve; a lot cheaper to decree than to repair.

You say religious people have caused immense suffering but which ones? — Andrew4Handel

The powerful ones, from Popes through kings and Protestant legislatures who took the Bible as their guide in formulating legal codes.

The Bible views suicide as equal to murder, which is what it is—self-murder. God is the only one who is to decide when and how a person should die. We should say with the psalmist, “My times are in your hands” (Psalm 31:15).

I especially like this bit:

Some consider Samson’s death an instance of suicide, because he knew his actions would lead to his death (Judges 16:26–31), but Samson’s goal was to kill Philistines, not himself.

killing other people is fine and holy - as long as they don't want to die.

So, can I have the realistic outlook of pessimism without the maladaptive beliefs and behavior? — Shawn

Wouldn't that depend on what you hope to adapt to?

There's middle-ground. — Heracloitus

Sometimes. We don't always create or choose our ground. In fact, the vast majority of people in the history of the world have not enjoyed that luxury. They try to survive in given situations, and they feel some way about it. That's their response; they are entitled to it, and most of the time, It's appropriate to the situation. Point is, why should anyone not express their genuine responses? And who gets to decide what's appropriate and what's excessive for someone else to feel? Who sets the correct mourning period for a parent or a friend or a homeland? Who calibrates the correct level of rage an abused child should feel? Who can assure me this volcano will not erupt again, this river won't flood, this house won't blow away in a gale - when so many already have?

I think you just enjoy taking any contrary viewpoint you can muster Vera, just for the fun of stoking the embers. — universeness

To what is this statement contrary? If science is not a methodology whereby humans achieve desired ends, what is it?

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." — universeness

Do you not see evidence that human scientific endeavour has been put to the service of of human goals? If so, why do you keep citing the successes humans have achieved with the aid of science? You yourself supplied the evidence.

The theistic imperative is far more pernicious to me than the concerns I have regarding those who use science for nefarious reasons. — universeness

That's as valid a preference as anyone else's.

Some 'well intentioned' delusional theists, even suggest you can find contentment, if you just accept god the totalitarian dictator, without question. — universeness

They have similarly pejorative descriptions of non-believers. Flinging more sand.

If you don't want to plant your flag and champion science or theism, then where do you want to place your flag? — universeness

I don't carry a flag. I find a flask far better company, and it doesn't make me as large a target.

A back to basics epicurean / bohemian, low tech society, who might eventually create a nice wee existence for all, here on Earth, but will never leave this pale blue dot? — universeness

Yup, that'd be by preference - except it doesn't need to be low tech, just smart tech.
But I'm pessimistic.

I think that 95% is now under continuing pressure from an ever growing, well organised alternative. — universeness

Some. And they're pushing back, big time.

I think that change for the better will continue. — universeness

You're an optimist... and maybe not quite current on world affairs.
It's dark out there, baby!

I have not met a pessimistic child myself so it seems like it is not a disposition. — Andrew4Handel

Haven't you? I've known several and seen many in action.

How does one adopt the matureness of philosophical pessimism without falling for the emotional side of pessimism with regards to emotional resignation, sadness, and lack? I — Shawn

Why should one try? What's wrong with resignation and sadness?
I hate Smile Culture!

Atheists want religion to be perfectly clear and this itself is against faith. — Gregory

We are not Borg. Some atheists may want that - in an argument. Most of these discussions are started by a theist and the opening word is usually "Atheists"... want, think... believe... say... claim. Some atheist nearly always bites and come back: No, I don't; I think... this, thus and so. Then some theist responds as if he knew better what the other person thinks, and some atheist does likewise and it turns into a bunch of kids throwing sand in one another's eyes.

Please. Do not tell me what I want, what I think, or what motivates me. I already know, and you still don't seem to, even though I've told you.

"How am I supposed to know which religion to follow" implies one is not immersing themselves in religion — Gregory

Nobody asks that.

Faith involves using discretion and reacting even when reason doesn't give a reason. — Gregory

I believe this to be true, whether the subject understands it or not.

Nonsense! Any new threat created via science is due to how some people choose to employ or manipulate new tech. — universeness

Isn't that exactly what I said: Science

It's just a method whereby humans make tools to manipulate matter. — Vera Mont

[humans use] religion, which provides tools for the manipulation of minds, — Vera Mont

The operative words are humans and tools.

This is a perennial deflection employed by both the advocates or science and religion. They argue as if the thing itself: Science, were pure and good, and when someone points it that it's also corrupt and bad, they say, Oh, that's just the people who misuse it.
Well, of course it is! Science isn't some pristine concept descended like the Christian dove, a gift and attribute of some god - it's a methodology people invented so they could do things they wanted to do - it's all about human desire and behaviour.
And Religion is not some nebulous cloud that consumed people; it's a set of ideas people invented, so they could describe what they wanted to describe - it's all about human desire and behaviour. (Double Helix.)

You would then hail me for my attempts to bring new life to the dessert and/or the moon and you would encourage your children to help me and the many millions who support me in trying to make Carl Sagan's prediction of "We are ready at last to set sail for the Stars!" come true. — universeness

No, I won't. I applaud people who try to bring some kinds of life to the desert - not the was the 'Israelis' went about it.
But as for going to the stars, I don't believe we are anywhere near ready. I don't think it will happen, and that's fine - I don't think we should be exporting our destructive craziness. Anyway, Sagan missed an opportunity. When asked whether she believed in a supreme deity, like 95% of the population she was going to represent, Jodi Foster should have said: "If you all agree on the god I will present it the aliens."

I'm the kind of cheerful pessimist who will feel much sorrow, much regret, much pity - but not suffer from depression. I know that in reality, things will end badly, but in fiction, I cannot bring myself to write an unhappy ending.

I do not think my pessimism is innate, though it's possible some temperaments are more prone to it. Me, I'm an optimist by nature, with a disposition to charity and happiness; my early experience was of a mother who sang and laughed, even when her life was difficult, and of relatives who doted on me - a pretty, well-behaved, clever child, who expected everyone's approval.

It is experience and learning that has brought about my pessimism. By the age of 25, I've worked it out that humanity is both destructive and self-destructive; that, having perfected its notion of 'civilization' and its mega-weapons, its short future will be full of strife, and all the good, wise people will be ignored at best; at worst, put to the stake. I know that still, more surely than ever. ...
...so then I wrote a story about the distant, happy future of humanity.

Yes, a lot of ideas in a big pot is a complex concept. — Athena

When it coalesces, yes. I don't think yours did.

Democracy is a complex concept. — Athena

Not really. Every citizen has a right to choose leaders and influence policy.

"There is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people." Thomas Jefferson — Athena

Bullshit, Tom! You wanted to keep your slaves, including your own bastard children.
Hypocrisy we have always with us - past and present.

Also corruption, will to power and dominance, deception, avarice, aggression, resentment, jealousy, arrogance and rage, mental illness, religious delusion, addiction, bigotry and plain old everyday disagreement.
America has never closely resembled its own image of itself or the image it presents to the world. But then, neither does any other country. Some are just more opaque than others; some have been luckier; some are more demographically diverse. Some nations, like individual persons, have a self-image that's less distorted than others'.

People religious belief or atheism and metaphysical stance are being used to advocate for policies that effect us all. — Andrew4Handel

I have no problem with your faith. You can linger as long as your health care insurance lasts; I won't unplug you against your will. But you just bloody well keep your pious paws off my right to die. Religious people have caused an incredible amount of unnecessary suffering with their "value of human life" claptrap - not by 'stealth and encouragement', whatever that means, but by the threat of insane asylum, prison or hanging.
The mainstream churches' "value of human life" vs capital punishment policies are especially intriguing as to the rationale.

I believe every person of sound mind has the right to decide when and how they will exit the world, including living wills and power of attorney for when/if they are no longer of sound mind. This means I'm against slaughter, torture, murder, war, the criminal negligence of letting half-wits run around with deadly weapons, capital punishment and ethnic cleansing.
If that's a morally inferior position to the "human life is sacred, unless it's in somebody we're mad at; non-human life is worthless, and we get to define who's human", I can live with that inferiority.

I can't think of an atrocity committed by an agnostic. — Andrew4Handel

Atrocities should come, like packaged food, with a content label on the back, as to the mind-set of their participants:
Hindu ---- 48%
Muslim ---- 40%
Atheist ---- 8%
Agnostic ---- 3%
Don't know ---- 1%
They're usually group efforts, with more than one motivating factor. The only thing we be can sure of they're all 100% human.