Firstly, just because you don't want to be forced to support the government's approach to helping people does not mean you don not want to help people in your own way. And i know that their are issue's so great and the public response has not been adequate requiring the government to step in and take care of it, but i think we should be putting more effort into taking over the responsibilities of the government. For example many people need government help because they are getting screwed over by the companies they work for. Since the 90's the bottom 90% of American's have only received 4% of the growth in the economy. This also affects the people receiving help as they no longer have to survive on government handout's. 

In conclusion my goal is to reduce the me-centric focus of society and get people to help those in need and give their employee's a fair go which i believe can be done by getting people to feel good about contributing rather than making them feel bad for not helping. It seem's that most of your argument is that society is naturally bad and will only help other's for bad reason's or if their forced to which is such a loser way to think.

I also never claimed that conservative's give more nor would i claim to be a conservative given other stigma's attached to the term.

You could also make the argument that anyone who spend's anytime enjoying themselves is imoral because they could be out there doing good things for other people. If someone does anything that may result in a shorter lifespan are they immoral because they have deprived others of their continued existence? By even existing many people are possibly contributing to global warming thus harming others, does that make them immoral?

Their is no such thing as a completely moral person, but Christopher Hitchen's was up there.

I could say it wwould be good if people do more.  But what happens when people's moral sensibilities get offended by things in society, but are so wrapped up in their own things they don't, then the government does step in.

Back to this thread, what religion does is get people to stop being me-centered, by offering something larger.  I have to wonder where does it comes from minus this though.

I agree with you on that point. Where we are and where i would like society to be are two different things adn till then a different approach is required.

However i disagree with the claim that religion stop's people from being me-centered. If anything religion reduce's the need to care for people's quality of life as they will have a better one after this (which sadly they won't). Also using a lie motivate people to do good is not good enough for me and where i draw the line.

Pretty much any system that is fairly extensive, provides a world view, a social network (with leadership) and a framework for processing reality (religion does this), that is bigger than a person will provide something that can break them from being consistently me centered.  The bulk of ethics we have also have come out of a religous framework, because the passing of information multiple generations and hitting experience, in the form of tradition, ends up forming a basis for things.   Going outside a religious framework (consider something like non-theistic Buddhism for example also), and you don't produce these social systems that enable people to go beyond themselves.  AT BEST, you get a civics religion and governments, and social programs.  But such end up being more of a clash of egos, or domination by elites on top.  Pretty much, in a secular society, which follows a liberal tradition of elevating individuals above groups, you won't get much group cohesion at all, or what I described.

And this group cohesion and structure, also leads to projects and social organizations and services forming.  A classic liberal view, of individuals raised, you don't get this.  It ends up herding cats.

http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2006/05/why-dont-atheists-build-hospitals.html

Pretty much, atheism is a negation, and not a belief, and negations don't do really anything.  

Firstly i don't claim Atheism to provide answer's since it is only the rejection of the answer to the question of weather god/god's exist or not. I believe it's important since the claim that god exist has not provided sufficent evidence to be considered truthfull and people use the name of god to get people to do bad things or excuse their own bad action's. Atheist do not feel the need to go around building charities in their name for self promotion or form athiest charities. Atheism is not supposed to be a big part of people's live's but sadly people often have to defend it bacause of the absurd attacks that are leveld against us on occasion. And the idea that religion does not elevate people above other's is COMPLETELY UNFOUNDED and they often rise above for terrible reason's. Sure not everyone is equal and nothing is going to change that and nor should it. 

The argument that our morals came from religion is also bullshit to the highest degree. We had morals way before any of the religions we have today came along as we have always had the power the emphasise with others. Even primates have been shown to display morals yet you claim we need religion to get our's? Hell some of the stuff to come out of religion is downright despicable such as support for slavery or oppresion of women. Religion just allows for people to stop thinking about morals despite what may be their actual opinion's. 

Call me a bad person if you will but lying to people or deluding myself into believing in a god i have no reason to believe in makes me sick. Anyone who would do what i just said is a loser and has taken such a pathetic view of hummanity and im not going to accept that that is the best path for society. 

And just to provide you with an example of this secular hell you keep describing go look at nations like sweden where they are incredibly irreligious yet people get taken care off (maybe a little to much) way more than in America.

Also what the fuck is a civics religion?

PS: I am partially confused as it seem's like your arguing for liberal at one point and aganst religion but are now arguing the opposite. Which is it?

A civics religion is a nationalistic religion, which is secular and holds out patriotic symbols and other special days and whatnot, tapping into the same part of the brain as regular religions do. North Korea does this, as do other Communist nations. You also have in America, where American way takes on near religious views with July 4th and whatnot. You can also see dose of this in Bioshock Infinite, which ended up turning Washington and so on into saints that were prayed to.

What I am saying is that it takes a community with established and agreed to values, to provide an environment supportive of certain moral behaviors to also demonstrate and develop a code of ethics. These then manifest as tradition. Anything else ends up being pretty artificial and the equivalent to Esperanto as a language. Looks good in an ivory tower, but doesn't get practices, and produces no semblance of a track record.

Your definition of what a "religion" is, is a bit skewed to put it mildly. Atheism IS a belief (a point I've gotten in arguments with certain Atheists about), but it is NOT in any way shape or form a "religion". However, to further that point, as I pointed out in my earlier post, there is a fine line between religion and spirituality. And the two are not one and the same, in fact personally I think they have little to do with each other.

Spiritual beliefs are simply that: beliefs. RELIGION implies something a lot heavier, a lot more attached, namely, agreeing to live by this that and the other law "because God says so". This is why religious folks in the US are so crazy hung up on being anti-gay, and anti-abortion, and anti-SOCILALISM (lol) or whatever. Because the people from their pulpits are using that "religious authority" to push a very NON-spiritual politcal agenda. And the sheep (not all, of course, but the ones that count, the ones who whine the loudest), they'll buy whatever is told to them, because "it's God's will". The reason most super-religious Americans vote Republican, is because they've been convinced that that is "God's party". Even though "God" has no political stances, and never told anyone to support any specific political candidate or agenda. That's according to their own Bible. But then again,there's Religion again, because depending on what sect or denomination you are, the interpretation of "God's Word" can become conveniently vastly different.

A LOT of folks, I would say, are "Spiritual but not Religious", and I would include most Buddhists, Shinto, Pagans, etc. in that type or realm. Why? Because in those paths, it is more about the actual spiritual and philosophical nature of the beliefs, and a personal relationship with that, than it is about this communal dogmatic doctrine nonsense. I don't mean to take an insulting tone towards monotheism, but it is what it is. And it's rather sad to me that the millions of us who are simply "spiritual", but in NO way religious at all, either get lumped in with "religion", or forgotten in the modern battle-lines between "religious" and "atheist". And as I said before, it's not that simple, black and white, "believe in God or believe in Science", as people in America at least, tend to paint it these days.

Atheism is actually a negation, not a belief.  It is a lack of a belief in God.  It doesn't contain anything, so it can't be a religion.  Now is it is possible to form religious structures and systems that are devoid of theistic tendencies though.

A) It's a small sample size and there is no disputing that. 

B) They were fake dollars. Start reading:

http://www.livescience.com/20005-atheists-motivated-compassion.html

C) No idea to what you're referring. 

D) Your evidence that Robb Willer or Laura Saslow are atheists and set out to prove a certain hypothesis? Let me guess, none. Of course not, because I have the exact words from the authors of the study itself disproving exactly as you have said. 

"Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not," said UC Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer, a co-author of the study.

"We hypothesized that religion would change how compassion impacts generous behavior," said study lead author Laura Saslow, who conducted the research as a doctoral student at UC Berkeley.

Furthermore, it goes on to state this:

"Saslow, who is now a postdoctoral scholar at UC San Francisco, said she was inspired to examine this question after an altruistic, nonreligious friend lamented that he had only donated to earthquake recovery efforts in Haiti after watching an emotionally stirring video of a woman being saved from the rubble, not because of a logical understanding that help was needed."

E) That isn't what is confirmed by the study at all and it has become abundantly clear that you A) Misunderstood the findings or B) Never read them.

And LOL@moving the goalposts coming from the guy when pressed for a source on theists being more moral than atheists talks about some study about charity under the guise of morality when the two are not the same. Work on retaining your own thoughts so I don't have to abuse you by parroting your nonsense back to your face.

No, the reality of the situation is that atheists are indeed more altruistic than their theist counterparts. This is simply common sense.

The religious animosity toward homosexuality, other religions (and non), condemnation of "sinners", raping and sodomizing children, etc.

I found a separate study about giving money that seems similar to what you were describing, but it doesn't involve Africa.

http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/Manuscripts/Shariff_Norenzayan.pdf

Findings:

Although unprimed atheists left slightly less than did unprimed theists ($0.97), this trend was weak and was not statistically significant,t(23)51.34, p5.19, prep5.73. Self-reported belief in God, as a continuous measure, was not a good predictor of how much subjects left in the control condition.

In summary, implicit priming of God concepts did increase prosocial behavior (i.e., increased how much subjects left for an anonymous stranger), and this effect was observed for both theists and atheists.