tomasdore

I agree that fear of an invisible sky god is not required. But wrestling with the questions I listed may still be required. Caution: this may not lead you to 'shallow judgements' nor provide 'easy rule following'.

YMMV - or, efforts may predict results. Just as there may be 'jobseekers' who have hardly sought, so there may be 'seekers of the truth' who, upon finding that the supreme divinity wasn't physically manifesting on their first command, then decided that the system was bogus, and shut the shop down from then on. But we can still have dogs, which will at least come over on command. (Is this why it's 'god' spelled backwards?...the secret's in the runes?). And dogs are love.

Whereas if one took a different attitude, saying that God > job (crazy, I know, in capitalism), then possibly a similar amount of effort might be expected. Then if a little seeking is permitted, it becomes only a question of trying different entrances. I hear good things about Kierkegaard (e.g. 'Works of love'); but no doubt there are many entrances.

Your second paragraph perhaps needs more justification? Religion seems to PUT questions:

1. Physical-world questions, the classic being, "if God is good and omnipotent, why does suffering exist?"

2. Moral-world questions, such as "who is my neighbour?", (and what are my duties towards my neighbour?).

In your phrasing, we'd say that atheism 'serves to answer questions', by answering only: 1. All is randomness, we're here because we're here, etc. 2. None, unless you choose some duty, up to you, etc.

These could hardly involve less thinking (for 1) or subsequent moral effort (for 2), so it's easy to see how 'you can find comfort from following that path'. Perhaps this explains their appeal!

Username checks out!

Or maybe he/she means that the government shouldn't be able to record your kids' political activity? And connect this in a big database to you.

I don't really get this. Until I re-read this, I thought the point was that you need more time than your wife will let you get. But you can outsource these chores simply by hiring help. That will provide jobs to others and it's clear in your comments that you can afford it, particularly if you earn more from work done in the time you save.

Regarding selfishness, it's good to do chores, sure. Dutiful. But the kids you care for are not much mentioned. You may matter more to them together-as-a-couple than you have predicted. So perhaps you are not selfish but detached - from their emotions, and from yours. Just a guess, I don't know you, but are you perhaps too much Apollo and too little Dionysus? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonian_and_Dionysian

Because that might also be also leading to a passion-free partnership. Plus, if the problem is too much Apollo, your solution is going to add more of that, and worsen the problem.

Perhaps the answer is as simple as an extension for you to work in, which is set up as an airlock-style system of doors, so that you are not really disturbable by your wife. I mean simply three or more doors in a row, with a little gap between each. A den, if you prefer. Or an inner sanctum. It is at least worth a good try.

On finding talks with "inequality" in the title: they do not show on the first page, but I found two by clicking 'See all 114 talks on Inequality' and then clicking on through the results pages; ie "A visual history of inequality in industrial America", and "How economic inequality harms societies", so two of that 114 search results.

If you can use 'clickers' aka "classroom response systems", then you can make the lecture lively by having it focused around questions, which importantly provide you with proper data on misconceptions in the students' minds. If the correction of such errors is key, making them visible will allow to you attack the most salient points: those errors widely shared. As a bonus, it provides the student with something to do, increasing their attention. It's great that you are also giving the material in advance.

This is genuinely a fantastic comment. You dealt with a cold, rude comment with grace and calm, then provided an easily understood statement of what defines a country with both freedom and rule of law.