If Hitchen's challenge is correct, then why are there ethical lapses?

[SlayerRondo]

richardhutnik said:

SlayerRondo said:

richardhutnik said:

SlayerRondo said:

richardhutnik said:

SlayerRondo said:

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?

It is only an issue of "forcing" someone to do it, if they don't want to do it.  And if someone doesn't want programs to help the poor, then I have to question them.  What I believe happens with government programs is they come to being because the will of the public is embarrassed by a problem, or offering it sounds appealing, and people fail to address the issue.  As a society becomes more secular, and people are taught to focus more on their own satisifation as their purpose in life, government programs will end up growing.  And in the charity side, particularly government programs, I get tired of the said "conservative" trope of how conservatives give more, thus it is better.

For myself, having people doing tithing to help the poor would help, along with some training and dealing with people's habits to make sure they learn to manage money better.   Need to work with the poor on this, and they need enough resources.  But, so long as the culture is one of self, self, self, then you aren't likely to get that.  Giving will be out of placating guilt.

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.

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?