richardhutnik said:
SlayerRondo said:
richardhutnik said:
SlayerRondo said:
Come on really? You are taking what he said to an absurd extreme. |
No, I am trying to practically apply what Hitchens said to a reality, asking exactly what good or evil people, do. One can argue that a person, in a religious community, is capable of doing good they wouldn't be alone, because they have encouragement and moral support, to help make right decisions, that they would lack without having. Person comes under the influence of others and lives a life where they give up things, or start doing things. Atheism doesn't produce such communities. What you get under atheism is pretty much government programs that do things. You don't see atheists really doing what Mother Teressa did. You will actually end you have Penn Gilletes of the world end up saying stuff like science and free markets do more good than Mother Teressa did.
No, I am looking at a practical reality, unless one wants ethics to be nothing more than just some sort of impractical scoreboard we use to feel good that we feel bad, and remind us we are not barbarians and savages.
So again here, if Hitchens is correct in that, there is NO act anyone needs any God for to do, that is right, then exactly why do people fall short?
|
Mother Teressa was not a good person by any strech of the imagination. Much of the money she raised was for the church coffers and little and less saw it's way into the hand's of the needy. Some of her care facilities actually set up to help the poor are beyond horrible and could have used more money badly. She was obsesed with suffering and though it brought people closer to god.
And by the way most charitable organizations are secular not religious and often do more good as they give freely without trying to sell their superstitions. I am an athiest and have many athiest friends/family who provide me with moral support and encouragement as do i for them.
PS: All athiest do not believe in big government. I do not believe in the government but rather people helping out other people from the kindness of their hearts rather than being forced to by the government/god.
|
So, what matters to you more is the condition of the heart of the giver than the condition of the person who is in ineed? When I see a comment like the one you wrote, said by many others, more times than not, the person is more than willing to have more people suffer if indivduals are less than willing to give, because giving is seen as a virtue of someone, rather than the end result of what happens to the people in question.
And also, how about questioning the person who has the bad attitude about letting go of some of their wealth to make sure those in need get something? Maybe the issue, more times than not about the "goodness of the heart" is that the heart isn't as good as people want to make it out to be.
|
No the condition of the person in need is of primary concern i just believe that people should do it of their own free will rather than being forced to do it. And yes many people give to improve their self image rather than out of kindness. For example the Government give's help/other people's money to people for votes or religions will give their help in order to convert people to their religion.
The heart can be as good as people make it to be. Call me idealistic but that's the way i think people can be if the try hard enough. People have heart but choose to ignore it for their own conveinience. And yes their are some legitimately bad people.
And just out of curiosity what was your solution for helping the needy again?
