Another Soulless Atheist

I do, too, if they come in non-Dunkin Donuts color schemes >.

From:

Yet it says "probably." Which makes it an agnostic bus. ;)

From:

Most atheists won't say flat-out, there is no god. Because you can't prove the non-existence of something.

However, we think god is *extremely* unlikely to exist, and that there is no good evidence in favor of god existing.

In other words, the burden of proof is on people who say god exists.

So I still think it's probably an atheist bus.

They also might have picked that wording to appeal specifically to agnostics.

From:

thorongil8.livejournal.com

I can't find the article (I didn't try very hard), but I remember reading a while ago that the "probably" was a requirement from the city.

It's funny. Christians say that non-Christians are going to hell all the time, but anyone stating an atheistic opinion is obviously "attacking their beliefs." Similar things were said about the theft of the atheist sign at the WA state capitol.

From:

What did the sign say?

From:

thorongil8.livejournal.com

The one in WA (which was put up by the Freedom From Religion Foundation) was more blunt. It said:

At this season of the Winter Solstice may reason prevail.
There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell.
There is only our natural world.
Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

From:

Wow. That's pretty hardcore.

From:

Honestly I'm as annoyed by aspects of the atheist movement (Dawkins and Harris particularly) as I ever have been by fundamentalists.

It's mainly because both sides spend a lot of time telling the other side that they're stupid in some way. They might use different words and techniques, but the sentiment is there - I know better than you.

Regardless of which side is "more right" I find that the approach itself is destructive.

So I would say I tend to identify more with anyone who is in the middle - people who go to church but don't spend their time worrying about whether others do and people who don't believe in god but don't worry about whether others do.

I think that there are legitimate gripes to be made about organized religion interfering in the government and schools, but as long as the separation of church and state is provided for, I have no problem with people expressing their religion.

I almost feel like the more "militant", shall we say, atheist movement fuels religious fundamentalism and vice versa.

I think it ended for me in particular when Sam Harris told The Sun he would rather see all religions end forever than end rape forever.

So while I know that it's unwise to paint all those who share a belief with one brush (all vegans are like PETA, i.e.), Harris and Dawkins piss me off and turn me off of many of these type things.

I just don't see the point. Most of this stuff provokes without achieving any end I can see other than making other people who share the same ideas smile. If you think there is another useful purpose to such t-shirts, bus ads, I am willing to listen, however.

From:

I think this comes down to a fundamental disagreement you and I have:

I think that things are scientifically provable, and that there can be such a thing as scientific fact.

Most religious people are happy enough with science until it disagrees with them. Which is silly, because when/if science agrees with them, then of course science would be right, and they'd quote said science all day long.

For instance: if prayer worked, we'd get strong scientific proof of it. We don't. Therefore religious people say we're doing it wrong, or figure out some reason it didn't work that doesn't challenge their beliefs. But if science proved that prayer worked, they would want everyone to know it.

Religious people cannot prove that god exists.

I truly think that many religious people are being intentionally ignorant or stupid. Creationists are stupid, I'm sorry. Science is 100% on the side of evolution. Biology as a subject only makes sense in terms of evolution.

So in that case, I *do* know better than religious people.

You may not like their approach, but whether or not Harris or Dawkins is abrasive to you--either atheism is right, or it's wrong.

And there's definitely a place in the public discourse for people like Dawkins and Harris. There needs to be someone out there who's willing to say the impolite: "You can't prove your religion to be true, and I respect you less for believing in things you can't prove." If a guy tells me Elvis talks to him through his TV he's crazy, but people who say that Jesus talks to them are generally respected, and I do believe there's something wrong with that.

From:

The part I am bothered by is "I respect you less..."

I was raised to think I was better than people who weren't as intelligent as I was. For years I thought that there was nothing wrong with that and it was only natural.

But now I see that that was one of the most toxic aspects of my upbringing. As much as I value my family's focus on education, the attitude that people who have come to different conclusions than me are not to be respected has led me to hurt others and causes me to hurt myself through self-judgment and criticism. After all, if stupid people don't deserve respect if I do something stupid I must not deserve it either.

Judgment based on perceived intellect is now something that I find offensive to a certain extent. I think it's a waste of time and I think it's hurtful rather than helpful.

I think it is important to point out the hypocrisies in our culture - Elvis guy versus Jesus guy (although I'm not sure if I'd say Jesus guy is "generally" respected as being trustworthy) - one can do that without saying the equivalent of "I respect you less..." for it. And I think one can also do it more successfully, building bridges along the way rather than blowing them up.

I also think they fail the subtlety of thought test. Both of them tend to rail against "religion" in general as if the institution were monolithic rather than composed of millions of individuals many of whom do a great deal of good and most of whom do no harm. It's also unsubtle in that religion is viewed as bad in and of itself rather than as one social instrument that may be used for ill. It's like saying that all government is bad because of the evils committed by governments throughout the ages. Now anarchists do argue this to a certain extent and some points can be made in favor of that argument, but it's far from a subtle argument, and it confuses the tool with the people wielding it.

Many atrocities have been and are committed in the name of or as a result of science as well (human medical experiments on unwitting/captive subjects, animal experimentation, the atomic bomb) but that doesn't mean science is bad.

Anyway... We do have disagreements April, but they are far less than you think they are. The main disagreement I have with all of this is whether it's worthwhile to scorn or think less of religion or religious people.

I didn't think it was right when they told me I was going to hell in the 6th grade locker room, but I also don't think it's right to tell them they are idiots for telling me that. What good does that do? How does that convince one person that science is their friend or that we all have something in common and should love each other?

I could see that Dawkins and Harris might cause people to think about these issues who haven't before, and that is a good thing, though I wonder how much the good is lessened by the superior attitude expressed in their works.

And I am glad that atheists feel they have a voice in places where they have been discriminated against. But I question whether Dawkins and Harris provide a voice which will reach across the divide to engage new people or whether they are primarily alienating and will create further negative energy.

I don't have a problem with atheists or people being atheists. I do have a problem with arrogance and negativity.

From:

I don't have to be okay with people who believe unprovable things.

Also: Other than that interview in The Sun, have you read Harris? Did you read The End of Faith or Letter to a Christian Nation? And in terms of Dawkins, have you read The God Delusion? Or are you going with things you've heard them say in the media?

Because the way their words can be twisted (not saying The Sun did that) is not a good representation of them. I can loan you The God Delusion if you want.

But if not, I mean, I didn't post that picture/article to have a discussion about whether you like the way atheists present themselves.

To a certain extent, I don't think Dawkins or Harris care whether they're "reaching across the divide" or not. They're saying, Here are the logical arguments against the existence of god, take it or leave it.

And again, how they present the information, or how you and I feel about it, has *nothing* to do with whether or not god exists or science is the best way to find things out, and I think it's important to separate those two things.

From:

You don't have to be okay with it, but how does not being okay with it help you or them?

I have read parts of each of the books. Admittedly, I should read them in full to fully debate anything about them. But I found their tone off-putting enough that I didn't finish it.

As to The Sun they print interviews in full - as in the full question followed by the full answer. Not little snippet quotes, but the person's full thought. So it was not out of context, it was the transcript.

Of course how they present themselves doesn't have to do with the argument itself, but like I said, I have no problem with the argument. I was an atheist for a long time and I respect the atheist position. I also respect people who feel they have a connection with a god(s) and have no problem with it whatsoever as long as they don't attempt to infringe on my rights to not have a religion or to obtain birth control, etc.

If you'd rather not talk about this, that is okay, but I do wonder why things like this bus give people pleasure. To me it seems more intended to provoke people than to cause happiness or help people. There is a place for provocation, of course, but I'm wondering what end the provocation is meant to achieve here.

With provocation like PETA's I can at least usually see a larger end goal - to make people aware that animals are suffering and hopefully cause them to look into it and perhaps change their opinions and lifestyles. But here I'm not certain that I see an end goal worth the provocation.

It's free speech, for sure. And I'm for free speech. And the atheist viewpoint is certainly underrepresented in our culture, so maybe that's reason enough. But it doesn't delight me and it actually seems about as presumptuous to me as someone telling me that I need to be saved. It's like "thank you, bus, but I can think for myself."

From:

I'm not sure if I care how it helps me or them.

I didn't find either author's tone off-putting at all. The End of Faith was a hard read because of his writing style (tooooo many footnotes), but honestly, I couldn't put down The God Delusion, I loved it so much. I didn't read the newspaper or any magazines at work (something I usually did) until I finished it. It was just so awesome.

I know The Sun prints things exactly as stated--I was trying to make them the exception and point that out, I'm sorry if that didn't come across.

I think part of the reason for the ad, is not letting the other side have all the say. We get bombarded with religious stuff, so it's a breath of fresh air to have someone reconsider religion. I'm not saying that atheists are necessarily this abused minority, but there's plenty of people who think I'm "un-American" because I'm atheist, and there was that Gallup poll that showed that people were more likely to vote a gay person president than an atheist!

There are lots of ads for all kinds of things on the bus, and you can always think for yourself, you always do!

I think that the bus ad gets people talking (just like it's getting us talking), and that in itself is worth the provocation.

From:

The main disagreement I have with all of this is whether it's worthwhile to scorn or think less of religion or religious people.

The sign didn't necessarily scorn religious people. It stated an idea, which you may or may not agree with.

From:

I should also clarify that I do think it is possible to think about these issues deeply and have a profound understanding of science and philosophy yet still hold a belief in a deity and/or deities. It's because faith, when it is faith, has absolutely nothing to do with science.

I have one friend in town, too, who has personally felt very alienated by people who take atheism to the point where they don't respect the religious. He's very smart, very liberal, very kind and he feels he can't talk about his religious beliefs without being mocked.

I don't see how that's better than me being teased by the religious kids in grade school.

From:

It's because faith, when it is faith, has absolutely nothing to do with science.

Well at least we can agree on that.

If god exists, that would have profound implications for science. There is no good evidence for god existing.

I'm not sorry if I have trouble respecting people who are willing to state out loud they believe in things without evidence.

From:

I'm not trying to attack you here, April, but does it feel good to disrespect people?

I mean, disagreeing with people and working towards the type of world we want is one thing, but disrespecting others doesn't seem to achieve much.

As much as I hate the policies George W. Bush put through and as much as I would like to see all of them overturned, it seems like a waste of time at best to make fun of him. Sure, I need to vent steam once in a while, but ultimately my goal would be to love everyone - even George W. You can love and respect someone and totally disagree with them and actively pursue opposite interests. These aren't incompatible.

From:

I think it's pointless to respect or love people who are actively hurting others. I really don't think my loving him will do any good.

And it doesn't matter whether or not it feels good to respect people or not. That's *not* what I posted this for, that's not what I wanted to talk about.

Every time, it seems to me, that we get into a discussion about atheism vs. agnosticism vs. religion, or a discussion about science vs. non-science, somehow the discussion becomes about how we feel about those things, or how we should respect people who feel differently.

Whether or not I respect people who feel differently isn't the issue. Whether or not something is true or isn't, THAT'S the issue.

From:

Then we have come down to the fundamental source of disagreement.

For me the point of life, science, religion, and everything in general is creating a world in which people respect and love each other and in which people behave with respect and love towards each other, animals, the environment, etc.

So when a philosophical debate, science or religion furthers these goals, that is what matters.

There is certainly worthiness and value in truth also, but when caring about the truth compromises love and respect I think it stops being as valuable.

That is a philosophical disagreement between us. I care about whether or not things or true and as a former philosophy major (and I was intense about that major) I spent a fair amount of time examining my assumptions and learning logic.

But I'm pointedly not trying to argue here about what is true or isn't, so that's not the issue for me. The issue for me is whether these arguments are producing happiness and love or whether they aren't.

So I've clarified that, and I don't feel like I need to say anything more here. I didn't mean to rain on your parade and if you'd prefer I don't have to discuss these things on your journal anymore.

From:

I think that all of those are important. Obviously I do.

But I think that truth has a value of its own. Scientific truth has a value separate from whether it helps anyone or not.

The pursuit of scientific truth should of course not harm anyone (and I include animals and the environment in that "anyone"), but as someone who loves science and loves learning more about how the world and universe works, I can't agree that all science should be judged on whether it improves the world beyond expanding our knowledge.

From:

I think I should also say that I, too, care deeply about truth. I went into my philosophy major with the honest desire to discover "the meaning of life."

But I think there are different ways to pursue truth, and different schools of truth to pursue.

I think scientific truth can often be very important and it should be pursued.

But - I think without a set of values that guide how science is applied things can go awry very quickly.

And finding those values or some truth about those values is more the type of truth that I care about.

In discovering ethical truths I feel religion can be very helpful and that less quantifiable human experience and things like religion are more helpful in discovering ethical truths which decide how we apply scientific truths.

Philosophy and logical argument are helpful too, but most philosophical ethical arguments will at one point come down to a discussion of something unquantifiable - the "good". Good isn't something you can measure on an instrument or see with your eyes. No matter how logical the arguments, it's something that we come across on the intuitive level. Unless, of course, you don't believe there is a good. And that's a defensible argument.

But most of us do go through the world believing that something is better than another thing in any given decision and most of us can tell the difference between something which is merely good for us and something which is good for the world.

I find religion particularly useful here, because there are points on which most major religions agree - that we should love one another, forgive, that we should treat others as we would like to be treated, that we shouldn't kill (not that most religions actually remember to PRACTICE this last one). But the ideals expressed in these belief systems are good starting points for talks about ethical truths.

And I'm still trying to find the meaning of life, or at least a good set of guidelines...

From:

And to clarify - I'm not saying I'm great at this. I make fun of people all the time and disrespect people all the time on some level. That "Fear God and Obey Him" guy didn't earn too much of my respect. But I'd like to not do that.

I think that through respecting people we disagree with, that's how we can affect change and make the world a better place.

From:

I have no responsibility or duty to respect people who believe actively harmful things, or who believe in things contrary to reality.

I might think they have value as human beings--for instance, I don't want them murdered or tortured or made to go hungry.

But I don't have to respect their opinions any more than I do a schizophrenic person's.

From:

Okay. I said I wouldn't say anything more but -

I think there is a difference between respecting a person's opinions and respecting their intelligence and then also respecting them as a human being.

I think respecting someone as a human being is a minimum level.

Respecting someone's intelligence or faculties is another step. And that would mean that whether or not you agree with them or came to the same conclusions you would respect that they had worked things out for themselves, or at least give them the benefit of the doubt. I think it's really easy for us to believe that people who disagree with us are just plain wrong or that they aren't thinking or being willfully ignorant. While that might be the case sometimes, I'm still not sure if that makes a person unworthy of respect. Everyone fucks up at something. I think on those grounds it would be just as reasonable to disrespect anyone who cut in line or made fun of someone. Because kindness is also a value. But best of all, I think, is to try mightily to continue respecting people.

Then there's respecting someone's opinion. But an opinion is separate from a person. So that's not too troublesome, though I think it's good to try to give people the benefit of the doubt on their opinions too, as long as those opposing opinions aren't doing any active harm.

But that's me. You have no responsibility or duty to do this, of course. But everyone likes to feel respected and valued and I think it's the best environment for free discourse.

From:

I stepped away from the computer and decided to come back and reword things a little:

I respect people as people.

But I can strongly disagree with people's opinions. I don't respect someone's opinion that I am Teh Evil because I've had sex with girls and boys and I'm not married and I don't love Jesus. I don't respect people's belief in an entity they cannot prove exists.

From:

That last example is interesting, because I would break it down like this -

- people believing you're evil because you're bisexual is a form of other people disrespecting your beliefs and lifestyle and deciding that you are wrong and they are right, and I would say that disrespect and judgment are at the root of that, rather than religion

whereas, unless it is used to dictate how things are taught in school or some other matter of public interest a simple belief in an entity that someone can't prove is fairly innocuous and doesn't really hurt anybody in and of itself.

And - I would add - by the dictates of philosophy where you throw out all assumptions including whether and how much one can trust one's senses - you can't prove anything exists. Maybe your own consciousness and even that is on shaky grounds.

For the practical purposes of day to day life we must assume that certain things are provable but absolute proof of anything? You can measure things with instruments, but then you have to prove that the instruments exist.

Hell, I'm such an agnostic, I'm not even sure if I believe in doubt.

From:

If we can't use evidence to back up our ideas, this discussion is over.

From:

All I'm trying to do with the above is show you where I'm coming from. In that most philosophy will at least pay heed to the school of total doubt of everything. That's a big part of what formed me.

I know that type of philosophy isn't for everybody, but I do think it's a legitimate tradition.

From:

In other news:

Aw aw! Aw aw!

(this is getting too tense and I need to let out some pterodactyl noises....)

Aw aw! Aw aw aw!

From:

I completely agree with everything you've said in this comment. Just sayin'.

From:

Oh, and: as a child, you're kinda forced to be in the same space as people who don't believe the way you do. Your classmates shouldn't have harassed you, for the same reason I didn't go off on the coworker who wore a fur coat, and why I didn't put down the religious beliefs of coworkers unless they asked my thoughts, they were people I saw every day and needed to get along with.

But if the people he hangs out with mock him for his beliefs, he's free not to associate with those people.

Unless they're coworkers or classmates. Then they should probably try to get along.

From:

I think part of the issue here with you and Jen seems to be over what should or shouldn't be respected here. It seems that for Jen, since there is no way to know for 100% sure whether a god exists, that moves it to the realm of opinion. For you, there is enough evidence that the lack of existence may as well be fact.

While I think it's definitely important to respect people's opinions on things that are a matter of opinion (whether movie X is good, whether you like cusine Y), for me this is not in that realm. I don't feel that I should have to respect the opinion of someone who decides that gravity doesn't exist and that our feet are magnetized, or someone who ignores the MOUNTAINS of evidence for evolution and still chooses to pretend that humans were created as-is, or people who believe that glittery unicorns exist. These are NOT matters of opinion.

Can you imagine what the world would be like if we had to respect everyone's "opinion" even if it flew in the face of scientific knowledge? "Hey, you can't walk across the street there, that's where the endangered Jibbaflob bug is nesting right now! They're invisible! OMG YOU'RE KILLING THEM."

Not to mention the implications this would have for the discipline of history (among others, I'm sure). We can never know EXACTLY what happened in the past, but evidence helps us get as close as possible. If we're throwing out all knowledge that we can't know with 100% certainty and just declaring such problems as matters of individual opinion...well, then, that just sounds really scary for history.

From:

Actually that's not what I was saying -

I was saying that one should try to respect people even if one doesn't respect their opinions or think that they are treating something as an opinion which seems to you to be a fact.

I don't respect the opinion that gay people are terrible, and it would be hard for me to respect a person who felt that way, but I would honestly try to do so, because I think that it doesn't help anyone for me to disrespect that person even if I disrespect their opinion.

Where I have a problem with the modern atheist movement is that sometimes I think it encourages a wholesale scorn of all religions and all people who practice religions/believe in a god or something like that/aren't atheists. A very superior attitude is often taken which doesn't seem to net any actual good for anyone and probably actually causes harm both to the atheist cause and to interpersonal relationships.

Like I said above, I was taught to disrespect "stupid" people by my parents and spent years of my childhood really believing that I was somehow "better" because I had better grades or a higher IQ or more achievements, etc. But in recent years, and partly as a result of spiritual exploration perhaps not coincidentally, I have come to believe that thinking myself better, wiser, more intelligent than others and spending time looking down at other people is a toxic behavior. It leads to alienating other people, concentrating on differences when I could concentrate on similarities and actually feeling worse and alienated myself.

I'm not a huge Obama fan (I voted for him, but you probably know Kucinich is my real favorite), but he is very big on being a "uniter" and everyone seems really into this energy right now of working together. The point I'm making here is simply that while I don't disagree significantly with the modern atheist movement in their ideas or even their aims (I think it's very important to separate church and state, church and education), I do disagree with the approach often presented and the across-the-board vilification of all religions and patronizing attitude towards religious/spiritual individuals. I don't think it helps achieve atheist political aims, nor do I think it encourages a truly healthy debate, and I think it ends up making what could be a dynamic, positive intellectual movement into a force of negativity.

To clarify, for me respecting an individual whose opinions you don't agree with would involve stepping back and imagining that that person has reasons for believing/thinking the way they do, giving them the benefit of the doubt and imagining that they have thought issues through and perhaps being curious about what their thought processes are/engaging in discussion, and, if upon further examination you feel that they just aren't thinking things through, letting that go and finding some other point of connection with the person, rather than wasting time calling these people "stupid."

All the great movements for change have concentrated on finding common ground and working together with diverse groups of people. One of the main complaints with religion is that it is judgmental and divisive. All I'm saying is that atheism can also be judgmental and divisive, and just because there is better evidence for it, doesn't mean that there should be any less concern with building a kind world capable of progressing together.

I guess what I'm saying is - is it more important to prove one's self right and superior and have fun laughing at religious people getting annoyed or is it important to build connections with moderate religious people in order to achieve ends such as separating church and state or simply building a better world in general.

For all they're hyped, religious fundamentalists aren't in the majority and there are plenty of religious people out there willing to have a dialogue about a non-Christianified nation if people reach out with kindness.

From:

Jen, if I didn't respect the religious, then I literally could not function living in the South. Of course I think one ought to respect people who have different opinions. But I don't have to respect that opinion at all, whatsoever, ESPECIALLY if it conflicts with reality.

I'm not interested in arguing with you or discussing your personal transformation, which is why I didn't reply to you.

From:

Jen, I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here.

This discussion isn't about your issues with whether or not you feel smarter than other people.

If I've decided I don't necessarily want to be a uniter, and I've stated that clearly, more than once, why do you keep trying to convince me otherwise?

Why are you still posting to this thread? Do you think *you're* accomplishing anything?

I'm finding it really hard not to be rude to you, Jen. I didn't ask, in any part of this discussion, for a lecture on how I should treat religious people.

Don't like how atheists talk about things? Fine. Don't talk to them.

From:

April - again, I'm sorry if I've offended you. If I'd known to what extent you were bothered by this, I wouldn't have posted here again. I was intending to reply to Zoe here, but may have accidentally addressed the comment to you. I'll take this as a cue to stay off of here.

But I really hope that we can talk about why this is upsetting both of us in person or in another format when you're ready.

Love,
Jen

From:

It's upsetting to me because you have *repeatedly* lectured me, or talked *at* me instead of *to* me.

You openly admit you haven't read either The End of Faith or The God Delusion, and you base your opinions solely on one interview in The Sun, and the image I posted. I would LOVE to loan you The God Delusion. Truly. Richard Dawkins is an excellent author and wonderful at explaining things better than I ever could.

I have, in the past, proven myself perfectly capable of talking to religious people and people I disagree with, in a sane and compassionate manner. I have learned the hard way not to rise to the bait on discussions about veganism, for example. So believe it or not, I am capable of it.

But the way you have spoken to me, over and over, in this discussion, has infuriated me. It has been *extremely* difficult not to be outright rude to you.

I have told you--more than once--that I'm tired of talking about the subject, and you kept coming back and posting long lectures to me.

I have also told you, more than once, that how you and I or anyone else feels about the subject, does not change the objective idea of whether or not there is a god. You keep trying to mix those two things up. They're separate discussions.

From:

April - we can have this discussion in person, on the phone, or over e-mail, though I prefer the first two. But I don't think it's productive on here anymore, and if I had realized you were this angry I would have abandoned it long ago. I'm sorry I've upset you and I would be happy to talk to you about it. But not here.

From:

I seriously never want to discuss this, ever again.

Also, please please stop lecturing people on their own journals. You're doing it to Cliff. I hope he deals with it better than I do.

From:

Oh yeah, and I wrote a second reply, but I don't know if it went to you. It's below my first reply...

From:

And as to the gay example...

This actually came up the other day on a park bench with a homeless man.

He started in about gay people being a problem. I could have chosen then to end the conversation or judge this person.

But instead I offered my opinion, spoke about my Uncle David in a calm way, and tried not to upset the man I was talking to, but just to listen to him and then he listened to me.

It was quite a civil exchange and when we parted ways, he thanked me for expressing my opinions openly to him about the issue. I don't know if I "changed his mind" per se, but it definitely turned a disagreement and a possible point of alienation into a point of connection.

I think this is possible with all exchanges.

I don't know if I did a good job above with April. I think I got rather too into my arguing. And for that I'm sorry. It's really hard to avoid judgment and the desire to assert rightness is strong, particularly when your evidence is strong. But I really think that often it is more important to reach out to a person with kindness and offer one's opinion non-judgmentally than it is to prove a point.

I've just seen instances where Dawkins and Harris get too caught up in superiority and really divisive statements. I know there are appropriate places for provoking people, but I think it has to be done really carefully and only when nothing else is going to work, and even then, I'm not sure if it does work.

This is more of a "tactics" argument, in other words. Like Vegan Outreach vegans versus PETA vegans.

From:

But I really think that often it is more important to reach out to a person with kindness and offer one's opinion non-judgmentally than it is to prove a point.

Do you really think you've succeeded there?

From:

Dear April,

I pointed out to Zoe above, that I don't think I always succeed there. I'm sorry if I haven't succeeded in my exchange with you or in other ways.

But just because I'm not good at something, doesn't mean I don't think it's a good value to aim for. If you want to have a discussion about this in person or on the phone or over e-mail, please let me know.

If you want me to stay off this thread, I will. I initially came back just to clarify my position to Zoe, but if it bugs you, I will leave.

I really am doing my best, April. Just like we all are.

Love,
Jen

From: