The idea that there is a perfect match out there for everyone seems to be nonsense to me. Where is the evidence for this? And even if it were true that doesn't necessarily mean you will find that person. Maybe they are on the other side of the world, maybe they haven't been born yet or maybe they are dead - who knows. In the end we can settle for and love a person, but it's often far from a perfect soulmate.
And another thing -- when somone says "you will definitely meet someone eventually" or "there is someone out there for everyone." How do they know this? Are they psychic? The bottom line is this: maybe you won't meet your match - ever! This is a very real possibility, it may seem depressing but it is true, and I'd take a cold reality over a comforting delusion anyday.
I omitted to explicitly state, that this of course includes the discretion of not laughing in the presence of any witnesses, whose feelings would get hurt.
Yes, I'm afraid you did.
Still, you and I were born with relatively superior intellects (I've read enough of your website to easily discern that), and I have reason to believe that those intellects have allowed us to process information in such a way as to conclude that there is no god, nor any miracles, but there are those who are not as fortunate as we, who do not possess such intellects, through no fault of their own, and I would no more laugh at their beliefs, than I would laugh at a Down's Syndrome victim or a hydrocephalic.
There is a huge difference between laughing at the generic prototype of someone being weird and a reason to be mocked, and unfortunate individuals.
Standing back in a corner at Lourdes and laugh at a spectacle of a mass of people behaving preposterously, of whom I knew nobody, is very different from feeling compassion for any person, whom I know personally as sadly afflicted with an irrational belief.
Being friendly and considerate to someone with the Down Syndrome does not stop me from laughing about funny lunatic jokes.
RE: "of whom I knew nobody" - I suppose that anonymity does make a difference - I suspect that that was the rationale used at Auschwitz.
I suggest that you visit Auschwitz and then reconsider your irrational comparison. A hidden, discreet and rationally justified mockery doing no harm to nobody cannot be compared with the atrocities and extermination of humans, whose ancestors had lived 2000 years ago in Palastine.
archeopteryx are you maybe of catholic background because your desire to inflict pain on others for words or thoughts sure makes you sound like it.
RE: "A hidden, discreet and rationally justified mockery doing no harm to nobody"
You and I have already discussed on your own website, if memory serves me, that depersonalization is necessary - in the case of our discussion, in wartime, but I would extend that to any group with whom one has significant dissension. To mock, one must first depersonalize.
Granted, I used Auschwitz as an extreme example, but the depersonalization process is the same.
As for doing harm to no one, I maintain that mocking others does harm to you - it demeans you and detracts from your humanity.
If we mock theists, particularly those afflicted with an ailment and so ignorantly superstitious as to pin their hopes on the water of a fountain to cure them, we are no better than the theists who mock us, and I prefer to believe that I am.
@ Phillip Jackson Armstrong - the total extent of my Catholicism consisted of attending midnight Mass once because a cute girl asked me to.
Depersonalization is treating an individual person not as a person.
I am not doing this.
Mocking a religious belief and mocking an amorphous, weird behaving mass are both not depersonalizing, what I do not perceive as individual persons.
The "amorphous, weird behaving mass" you describe is comprised of individuals, most of whom have a physical infirmity of which they hope to be cured. It's bad enough that their delusion is going to disappoint them, and they will be left with their infirmity for life, but to be mocked in the process, to my way of thinking, is cruel.
On your own website, you make it a point to differentiate between the rational mind and the instinctive mind - I must ask, how rational is it to ridicule the infirm, the crippled, the terminally ill, regardless of their religious beliefs.
People are not individuals to each other unless they interact and they can distinguish an individual from others. To perceive any haphazard person as an individual, one has to be aware of the existence of this specific person.
People cannot be cruel to each other, unless they have an influence or impact upon each other.
Standing in a hidden corner at a distance, I did not see individuals and no individual did see me. There was no mutual impact.
You seem to be adding more details as the story progresses, e.g., "Standing in a hidden corner at a distance," as well as the past tense in the verbs to follow, which indicates that it is not a hypothetical situation, but that it actually happened. While there may not have been a mutual impact, there was at least an action, and that action serves as a Rorschach, that says much about the way you think.