By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 19 September 2010
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
chocoloco said:
Kasz216 said:
pearljammer said:

 

 

The book, "Who Really Cares?" (I have it, but didn't get to read it much) is an interesting work.  To go off track here a bit, I find the premise of the book ends up taking the issues of helping the poor and takes the focus off those in need, on those who do the giving.  I think the focus needs to be on those in need personally.


I disagree... since that's not what the book is about.

I don't think a book about poor people would be anymore likely to make people give, I mean how many people spend there days walking by countless homeless people and just not care.

I became familar with the book, and thus got it, by hearing it through the Hanity's and other Newscorp commentator shows.  I happen to comment here just that a focus on who gives more, rather than which approach helps the poor more, is important.  I also believe, referencing the Gospels, that looking at giving through the eyes of the giver, and speaking of that as being virtuous, totally misses the point where the idea is to give and have people focus towards God in the end.

In short, the book was used in the talking head circles to speak on how conservatives care about the poor more than liberals.


Which is meaningless.  The research itself is all that matters.  Whatever people decide to do with it afterwords is their buisness.

Though as for which approach works better... it's pretty easy to see which gets more bang for the buck.



Around the Network
sapphi_snake on 19 September 2010

@richardhutnik

The reality is this: A sound ethical system doesn't come out of a single person reasoning on something.

Then i suppose you agree that following the moral system proposed by your deity or by Jesus is foolish.

If people happened to be all reasonable, good natured, and rational, then you wouldn't have people banned on forums on this.

I never said all peopel always act rational, but rather they should act that way.

In your case, do you presume it is all these vile and disgusting religious system that we just purged, we would no longer have a need for moderators on forums like this?

There may be some mistakes in this phrase. I don't understand what you're asking.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

pizzahut451 on 19 September 2010
Badassbab said:
pizzahut451 said:
Badassbab said:

Yes but atheism isn't a belief like religion. It's more a non belief. And like it's been pointed out those killed by Stalin etc wern't killed because of a religious belief and it had nothing to due with them being an atheist. If you want to play that game than I could list every single dictator, King, Queen, President etc throughout history who professed to a religious belief and put the number of deaths they were responsible for next to their name. It would be a VERY long list. Furthermore don't forget the relationship between the Catholic Church and Hitler and Mussolini. Hitlers religious belief is still up for debate.


Oh but they were. If not killed, then most likely set to prison or to working plan. And i said 1 000 000 times before, he killed for communisam which is also atheistic regime. It doesnt matter if its a religious belief or not. An atheist killed people for being religious to promote his atheistic regime..PERIOD Why you wanna twist that so badly?

Stalin was a paranoid monster who killed his own citizens in their millions. It could be down to religion, different opinions, political opponents, paranoia etc but not just religion. I'm certain Stalin killed many atheists too. It strikes me how you can't comprehend that Stalins atheism had nothing to do with him being responsible for 20 million deaths, he could have been an Orthodox Christian (a belief he was born into) and still killed millions. You haven't even proved Stalins athesim was responsible for 20 million dead. And yet you ask us to ignore the religious aspect of religious based wars. Pure hypocrisy. As mentioned before I could list any tyrant throughout history and put the number of deaths next to their name and the likelyhood is they would have professed to a religion even though the religion had nothing to do with whether they killed millions or not. Exactly the same concept with Stalin and athesim. Same goes with all the other tyrants you listed.


Well, i never said Stalin killed 20 million religious people,  i just said he killed religious people because they were staying in the way of communisam which supports atheisam and is atheistic regime. And like i said religion was the last thing crusades and holy wars were about. Like most wars, they were about power, money and leadership. The same reasons Stalink killed over 20 million people. To say that either religion or atheisam are responsable for Stalin s  kills and religious wars and to say they are bad because of that is incredibly ignorannt.



pizzahut451 on 19 September 2010
Scoobes said:
MrBubbles said:

the point didnt seem to be that stalin was killing people because he was atheist.  just that he was an atheist and did that.   which is the topic.  atheism and morality.   stalin being an atheist and showing a lack of morals is a perfectly fine argument for him to make.


If that's your argument than it's just as easy to say that religious people are far more immoral than atheists as the vast majority of leaders, dictators and tyrants were religious.

Basically, it's not a very good point. Whether someone is atheist or religious makes no difference to whether they commit immoral acts. However, you're far more likely to get people following into a war if you utilise their religious belief. Much harder to do that with a complete lack of belief (atheism).

Not saying it's not possible, as with things like nationalism (or even something as small as support for a sports team's fans causing a riot), but it has nothing to do with atheism.

I dont think any religious dictator killed as many people as any atheist dictator.



pizzahut451 on 19 September 2010
Reasonable said:
MrBubbles said:
im_sneaky said:
MrBubbles said:
dib8rman said:
MrBubbles said:

the point didnt seem to be that stalin was killing people because he was atheist.  just that he was an atheist and did that.   which is the topic.  atheism and morality.   stalin being an atheist and showing a lack of morals is a perfectly fine argument for him to make.


What? So your saying because he was Atheist and commited murder that Atheists have morals in line with mass murder or genocide?

Dude, Stalins morals were fine, if the Russians had won that is. I remember a bit of the cold war, I remember how much the Russians hated England and the US anything not Russian, the US hated the Russians almost as much.  This hate came from Nationalism, a conflict of values.

Here's a touch of history without any bias.

1. Stalin replaced Lenin and was much more brutal than Lenin.

2. Stalin wanted to keep USSR as one country and saw the Ukraine as a place of potential issues in that agenda.

3. Stalin Captured and or killed Scholars, Artists, Culturalists and Religous members (Around 6000 of them) The reason he did this was to null media and begin his propoganda machine. This had nothing to do with morals, this was about defence, his nationalistic pride. It's the equivilent of a burglar getting into your house and you using deadly force. Maybe this burglar had no intent of harming anything at all who knows. The morals of that situation isn't up for arguement, it's the same thing except USSR was the house and Stalin used deadly force on a new value system.

4. Stalin starved about 6 million people (I think, can't really remember) Then said you kill 1 man it's a tragedy but kill a million and it becomes statistic. Out of context that sounds immoral but in context morals have little to do with that.

Judging his actions from an arm chair just seems like a waste though, what he did was atrocious to the average person but to the people carrying it out, he did it for the betterment of the USSR the Russians carried this sentiment even to the 80's.

Now it's easy to point the finger at one guy but he had a whole population that agreed with what he was doing to the Ukraine, this is the source of the answer to "why" the answer is Nationalism. Not morals and definetly not Atheism.


my position is that there are not many atheists that can be held up as examples of good morals(even two that someone brought up appear to be only agnostics that atheists seem to be essentially hijacking).  So if people can only name "bad" atheists then people will assume that atheists arent moral.  With more prominent clearly upstanding atheists then people wouldnt generalize atheists as having no morals or being immoral.

the other person brought up high profile atheists who do not have a good morals.  i would probably argue that those individuals are amoral.  Someone mentioned that atheists actually have a better moral code, so i guess he believes those people are immoral and essentially evil(since they know right and wrong but are willfully choosing to act wrongly).  I couldnt tell you whether or not either feel it reflects poorly on atheists as a whole.

In my personal experience, most of the atheists ive known (and no im not saying all atheists are this way) tend to be bitter and hate god, rather than reaching the decision that god doesnt exist through a logical thought process.  It doesnt even seem a rational position to me.  I can understand an agnostic "god probably doesnt exist" point of view... but to be so absolutely positive about something unknowable...(even religious people can claim personal experience that affirms their belief,  but what situation would someone have to prove that He doesnt exist)

I hope this answers your question.

Interesting. What do you mean that most atheists hate God? It seems irrational for anyone to hate the source of all good in the universe. Did you actually mean that or were you trying to say something else?


Their belief that "god does not exist" isnt actually about god not existing.   (its not something they would admit to but it comes through in discussions).  Obviously they wouldnt feel that god is a source of all good.  Perhaps, for example, they have had a rough life and therefore feel abandoned by god...or perhaps a bad experience within their religious structure.  They developed an animosity towards their perception of god which results in "god doesnt exist" 

Err... I don't believe in God (being polite and putting capitals and all) becuase the evidence clearly shows that God - at least as defined in any of our current religions - doesn't exist.  No hate, no annimosity.  I don't believe in God in the same way I don't believe the moon is made of cheese.

may i ask what is that evidence?



Around the Network
WessleWoggle on 19 September 2010
pizzahut451 said:
Reasonable said:
MrBubbles said:
im_sneaky said:
MrBubbles said:
dib8rman said:
MrBubbles said:

the point didnt seem to be that stalin was killing people because he was atheist.  just that he was an atheist and did that.   which is the topic.  atheism and morality.   stalin being an atheist and showing a lack of morals is a perfectly fine argument for him to make.


What? So your saying because he was Atheist and commited murder that Atheists have morals in line with mass murder or genocide?

Dude, Stalins morals were fine, if the Russians had won that is. I remember a bit of the cold war, I remember how much the Russians hated England and the US anything not Russian, the US hated the Russians almost as much.  This hate came from Nationalism, a conflict of values.

Here's a touch of history without any bias.

1. Stalin replaced Lenin and was much more brutal than Lenin.

2. Stalin wanted to keep USSR as one country and saw the Ukraine as a place of potential issues in that agenda.

3. Stalin Captured and or killed Scholars, Artists, Culturalists and Religous members (Around 6000 of them) The reason he did this was to null media and begin his propoganda machine. This had nothing to do with morals, this was about defence, his nationalistic pride. It's the equivilent of a burglar getting into your house and you using deadly force. Maybe this burglar had no intent of harming anything at all who knows. The morals of that situation isn't up for arguement, it's the same thing except USSR was the house and Stalin used deadly force on a new value system.

4. Stalin starved about 6 million people (I think, can't really remember) Then said you kill 1 man it's a tragedy but kill a million and it becomes statistic. Out of context that sounds immoral but in context morals have little to do with that.

Judging his actions from an arm chair just seems like a waste though, what he did was atrocious to the average person but to the people carrying it out, he did it for the betterment of the USSR the Russians carried this sentiment even to the 80's.

Now it's easy to point the finger at one guy but he had a whole population that agreed with what he was doing to the Ukraine, this is the source of the answer to "why" the answer is Nationalism. Not morals and definetly not Atheism.


my position is that there are not many atheists that can be held up as examples of good morals(even two that someone brought up appear to be only agnostics that atheists seem to be essentially hijacking).  So if people can only name "bad" atheists then people will assume that atheists arent moral.  With more prominent clearly upstanding atheists then people wouldnt generalize atheists as having no morals or being immoral.

the other person brought up high profile atheists who do not have a good morals.  i would probably argue that those individuals are amoral.  Someone mentioned that atheists actually have a better moral code, so i guess he believes those people are immoral and essentially evil(since they know right and wrong but are willfully choosing to act wrongly).  I couldnt tell you whether or not either feel it reflects poorly on atheists as a whole.

In my personal experience, most of the atheists ive known (and no im not saying all atheists are this way) tend to be bitter and hate god, rather than reaching the decision that god doesnt exist through a logical thought process.  It doesnt even seem a rational position to me.  I can understand an agnostic "god probably doesnt exist" point of view... but to be so absolutely positive about something unknowable...(even religious people can claim personal experience that affirms their belief,  but what situation would someone have to prove that He doesnt exist)

I hope this answers your question.

Interesting. What do you mean that most atheists hate God? It seems irrational for anyone to hate the source of all good in the universe. Did you actually mean that or were you trying to say something else?


Their belief that "god does not exist" isnt actually about god not existing.   (its not something they would admit to but it comes through in discussions).  Obviously they wouldnt feel that god is a source of all good.  Perhaps, for example, they have had a rough life and therefore feel abandoned by god...or perhaps a bad experience within their religious structure.  They developed an animosity towards their perception of god which results in "god doesnt exist" 

Err... I don't believe in God (being polite and putting capitals and all) becuase the evidence clearly shows that God - at least as defined in any of our current religions - doesn't exist.  No hate, no annimosity.  I don't believe in God in the same way I don't believe the moon is made of cheese.

may i ask what is that evidence?


There's no omnipotent man with a beard that lives in the clouds? Except the great god El of course, who set me on the path to become the Buddha Maitreya.



WessleWoggle on 19 September 2010

Atheists are immoral. We all need to look to the great god El and the incarnation of his light, Satan, to guide our lives. The great God El and Satan wants us to fuck, use drugs, and party! He wants us to go back to our roots and form villages deep in the forest where the unnecesary laws of mankind are gotten rid of and we can do all the drugs we want!



highwaystar101 on 19 September 2010
pizzahut451 said:

Think of this buddy

  • Joseph Stalin, Atheist: 20 million plus dead
  • Mao-Tse-Tung, Atheist: 40 million plus dead
  • Adolf Hitler, Atheist: 10 million plus dead
  • Pol Pot, Atheist: 2 million dead
  • Kim-Il-Sung, Atheist: 5 million dead
  • Fidel Castro, Atheist: 1 million dead

1. Why on Earth did you link to the Encyclopaedia dramatica page on high scores to make a point about genocide? That's pretty damn sickening isn't it? It's a disgusting source to link to. Or did you just not check the source and quoted it blindly?

Because it's one or the other.

2. Richard Dawkins made this speech yesterday at the protest the pope rally, and I think it's pretty relevant to your post. For most of it he's just pandering to the audience in his usual way. But from about 1:00 to 6:00 he makes a very good point about the link between tyrants an atheism, particularly Hitler.



WessleWoggle on 19 September 2010

God killed everyone!



richardhutnik on 19 September 2010
sapphi_snake said:

@richardhutnik

The reality is this: A sound ethical system doesn't come out of a single person reasoning on something.

Then i suppose you agree that following the moral system proposed by your deity or by Jesus is foolish.

If people happened to be all reasonable, good natured, and rational, then you wouldn't have people banned on forums on this.

I never said all peopel always act rational, but rather they should act that way.

In your case, do you presume it is all these vile and disgusting religious system that we just purged, we would no longer have a need for moderators on forums like this?

There may be some mistakes in this phrase. I don't understand what you're asking.

The points:

* My comment on people refers to "humans".  An ethics system of an eternal being who created the universe would naturally be superior.  Anyhow, if you want to go with the Christian faith, the principle of establishing is by having multiple witnesses agreeing to what they see.  It isn't one person alone who discusses.

* And I would say fairly depraved people are rational and use their reasoning to justify their being depraved.  Reason merely helps you organize data in a logically consistent manner.  Reason alone can't give you the answers you need.

* In your case, since you are now a non-theist, I wanted to ask you about the sources of disruptions on here and what is considered bad manners, and so on.  If you were to get rid of all external religious systems, and purge them, would you end up with the forum not needing moderators to keep out troubled individuals?