Philosophy Now Forum

Felasco wrote:

You have presented ZERO evidence. And made no substantive claims for any benefits of religion.

I believe somewhere above, or in another thread we shared, I reported that Catholic Charities is the second leading provider of social services in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charities_USA

In all seriousness do you not think, that, rather than giving these money making religions tax breaks, the secular USA should follow the suggestion of their own constitution and provide democratically elected councils to provide social services?


Sadly such activities come with a high cost. They have two, negative effects on the communities they "provide for".
1) A continued infantilism, that fosters a system of dependancy.
2) It comes free in one hand but with a stick in the other, demanding adherence to a set of beliefs.

For example - GW Bush banned all AIDS aid that gave help to prostitutes; that included the hading out of condoms and that did not submit to a range of religious rules. This set back AIDS help in Africa about 20 years.
It was not helped by the Pope saying that condoms caused AIDS

There is nothing special or unique about 'religion' that makes charity its exclusive property.

Although atheists and agnostic only form a small %age of the population their contribution outweighs religious groups pro rata. Additionally they are more sensitive to the needs of the communities they help and eschew "charity" in favour of pro-positive programmes that give long term help and empower local groups to seek their own rights from their own governments.
The growth of what are called "rights-based" aid is due to the efforts of secular organisations that have no connection with organised religion. Religious organisations do not usually do this because they have a vested interest in converting and enslaving more flocks.

I know about this stuff because my partner works at policy making level in several such organisations.

Felasco wrote:
If it's the later, you are engaged in ideology, not reason.

If that's true, then just call it ideology, and I withdraw my complaint.

I have good reason to know what I know about the effects of charities.
We would be better off without religion.

We would be better off without religion

The "royal we".

Take your own advice and speak for yourself.

There is nothing special or unique about 'religion' that makes charity its exclusive property.

I agree completely, and did not make any such a case. When you make that statement, you are actually arguing with a bogeymen of your own invention.

I agree, religion is not required for charity, and many non-religious people are just as fine or better human beings than many religious.

I was just pointing to the reality that religion has succeeded in inspiring many millions of people to be better citizens.

This single indisputable very well documented fact effectively demolishes your wildly sweeping assertion that religion is all bad. There are plenty of other examples we could explore.

I would also agree with you that religion has also inspired many people to become huge dickheads. I totally concur. However, this is not a function of religion exclusively, as all ideologies have their share of huge dickheads.

Pinning the blame for Dickhead Syndrome on any one ideology or class of ideologies is a shallow analysis, imho. If we reason from the fact that Dickhead Syndrome arises in all ideologies (even ideologies explicitly about love) then it follows that the source of this disease is something deeper that all ideologies share.

What do all ideologies share? What is the common component?

Felasco wrote:

There is nothing special or unique about 'religion' that makes charity its exclusive property.

I agree completely, and did not make any such a case. When you make that statement, you are actually arguing with a bogeymen of your own invention.

Then why are you offering data about religion and charity as if it does have this property?
It is because you love a stupid specious argument?
Or is it that you just love to waste your time trying to think coherently and failing?

I agree, religion is not required for charity, and many non-religious people are just as fine or better human beings than many religious.
Then your assertion that religion is the source of charity is false.
I was just pointing to the reality that religion has succeeded in inspiring many millions of people to be better citizens.

WHo would have been inspired to give for more rational reasons if religion did not exist - and in fact do in greater numbers.
You have also ignored a significant thread in Christianity which demands that poverty if God's judgement, and it is impious to help the poor; then there is another thread of Christianity which holds that god must actually like poverty - there being so many poor people and thus it is the duty of every monk to live in poverty with the plebs. There have been times in history when priest competing for alms meant that the real poor, went hungry.


I would also agree with you that religion has also inspired many people to become huge dickheads. I totally concur. However, this is not a function of religion exclusively, as all ideologies have their share of huge dickheads.

What ideologies are you the dupe of?

Pinning the blame for Dickhead Syndrome on any one ideology or class of ideologies is a shallow analysis, imho. If we reason from the fact that Dickhead Syndrome arises in all ideologies (even ideologies explicitly about love) then it follows that the source of this disease is something deeper that all ideologies share.

What do all ideologies share? What is the common component?

It's your word- you tell me!

reasonvemotion wrote:

We would be better off without religion

The "royal we".

Take your own advice and speak for yourself.

I am not speaking FOR anyone else but me.
I am speaking OF. Do keep up - there is a difference.
I mean the entire human race.
Or do you not include yourself in that?

chaz wyman wrote:

Felasco wrote:
If it's the later, you are engaged in ideology, not reason.

If that's true, then just call it ideology, and I withdraw my complaint.

I have good reason to know what I know about the effects of charities.
We would be better off without religion.

You're slightly incorrect Chaz, dichotomies are required. It's about choice's. Could there be atheism without theism. Of course not look at the root of atheism. But as with what you all seem to be caught up in, that's just another entanglement of words. When in fact we are talking about the thing in an of itself, or an absolute, if you will. Words set aside, there could not have been atheism if it were not for theism. Theism is the old, while atheism is the new. Out with the old, in with the new. But I see that neither camp can prove either way, their 'beliefs' as 'facts.' their could be an intelligence that is responsible for our design. If we actually created nanobots, eventually to a level of sentience, would that not necessarily mean we were their gods, and would they necessarily know of us? My point being we seem to spout that we are intelligent. Are we the first? Why is it more probable that intelligence sprang from nothing as opposed to something? Is it not more probable that intelligence begets intelligence, as in the case of our hypothetical nanobots? Neither side of this argument can prove it's case either way. Both camps just try and convince the other they are correct, despite their not being capable of proving it. Tis a stalemate, I tell you. I'm agnostic because I know that neither of you can prove, beyond a shadow of doubt that there either is or is not a creator. But as far as 'mans' religion is concerned, as it's forced down his throat or else he is killed, well you can take it and stick it up your ass. In the case of not being able to prove either way, it's every man for himself. And each should be left alone in order to do so. And in the end each may or may not find out the truth, but then either way you'll only have yourself as the accountable one, as in the end it's the only way it can be. This argument shall probably always remain moot.

As far as whether or not religion was required for our current state of knowledge. Of course it was. Everything of the past is why we are where we are to day. It is false to assert that without any one particular thing we would be better off, as man is notorious for creating things, what would have replaced religion had it not been the case? Gawd, only knows!!! But 'we' may have been worse off in that case. Define worse off? Define better off? Define 'we?' I see that the only we that matters is that unfortunately some of another rubs off on us as we merely pass by. That's as much 'we' as any of us can actually afford. That nebulous cloud of influence, that can unfortunately cause us ill. I say mind your own fucking business as much as possible, as we shall each die alone, only ever so alone. Is this the only reason we have to engage one another, because in the end we shall be so utterly alone? Does it matter how we engage one another, as long as we're not so utterly alone?

chaz wyman wrote:

Felasco wrote:What do all ideologies share? What is the common component?

It's your word- you tell me!

It's hardly a problematic word, chaz. If you have an answer to Felasco's question, then give it. If you haven't then say so. This "you first" evasion makes you look dishonest and childish.

mickthinks wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

Felasco wrote:What do all ideologies share? What is the common component?

It's your word- you tell me!

It's hardly a problematic word, chaz. If you have an answer to Felasco's question, then give it. If you haven't then say so. This "you first" evasion makes you look dishonest and childish.

Why don't you go back to lurking?

Felasco has his own idiosyncratic versions of what he means by ideology, as he does of religion and more besides. It is a good idea for him to say what it is before I answer.

Then why are you offering data about religion and charity as if it does have this property?

Religion has this property, but is not the exclusive source of this property.

It is because you love a stupid specious argument?
Or is it that you just love to waste your time trying to think coherently and failing?

No, this is incorrect. It's because I enjoy watching you embarrass yourself with pathetically reactive junior high school antics. You're not the only one in junior high you know..

Then your assertion that religion is the source of charity is false.

Chaz, please read the posts you are replying to. Like I've said a couple of times now, religion is a source of charity not the source of charity.

Your compulsive reactiveness is the best evidence for my assertion that your beliefs on these issues do not arise from reason, but from emotion. Every time you type some snotty sarcastic remark, you are proving my point, so keep them coming.

WHo would have been inspired to give for more rational reasons if religion did not exist - and in fact do in greater numbers.

A theory, but not what actually happened.

You have also ignored a significant thread in Christianity which demands that poverty if God's judgement, and it is impious to help the poor; then there is another thread of Christianity which holds that god must actually like poverty - there being so many poor people and thus it is the duty of every monk to live in poverty with the plebs. There have been times in history when priest competing for alms meant that the real poor, went hungry.

Once again I must remind you that I've already agreed that there are plenty of dickheads in religion.

What ideologies are you the dupe of?

The hopelessly foolish dialog with Chaz ideology.

Felasco wrote:

Then why are you offering data about religion and charity as if it does have this property?

Religion has this property, but is not the exclusive source of this property.

Thank you for agreeing with my position and contradicting yourself.

It is because you love a stupid specious argument?
Or is it that you just love to waste your time trying to think coherently and failing?

No, this is incorrect. It's because I enjoy watching you embarrass yourself with pathetically reactive junior high school antics. You're not the only one in junior high you know..
Others can be the judge of who is worthy of embarrassment.

Then your assertion that religion is the source of charity is false.

Chaz, please read the posts you are replying to. Like I've said a couple of times now, religion is a source of charity not the source of charity.

Good, now you agree with my position. I knew I'd get there in the end.

Your compulsive reactiveness is the best evidence for my assertion that your beliefs on these issues do not arise from reason, but from emotion. Every time you type some snotty sarcastic remark, you are proving my point, so keep them coming.
Same to you.

WHo would have been inspired to give for more rational reasons if religion did not exist - and in fact do in greater numbers.

A theory, but not what actually happened.

It is actually what is happening right now. The profile and and receipts to Aid organisation has increased massively due to Secular organisations such as Band Aid, Live Aid, DATA, EDUN, One Campaign, Fair Trade etc.. Organisation that provide long terms help and not 'charity'.
You might have heard give a man a fish and he will eat for a day , give him a net and he will feed himself for the rest of his life. Well things have moved past that, and Aid organisations now promote rights based initiative which empower individuals to get their own net and get rights to fishing from their governments.
Church based organisations have been slow to follow this initiative, preferring to hand out food in exchange for prayers and church attendance.

You have also ignored a significant thread in Christianity which demands that poverty if God's judgement, and it is impious to help the poor; then there is another thread of Christianity which holds that god must actually like poverty - there being so many poor people and thus it is the duty of every monk to live in poverty with the plebs. There have been times in history when priest competing for alms meant that the real poor, went hungry.

Once again I must remind you that I've already agreed that there are plenty of dickheads in religion.

But you choose to ignore the facts and accuse me of emotion and cherry picking when I present them. What is your underlying blindness the result of, what is it that you do not want to face up to?

Take a look at this article and ask yourself why is it that this Rabbi is allowed to practice oral Bris, and is not now in prison. Ask yourself why is it that religion has such a special place in society that it manages to avoid rules that apply to other money making organisations such as fair advertising claims, responsible corporate practice, gender equality laws etc.?

What ideologies are you the dupe of?

The hopelessly foolish dialog with Chaz ideology.

It's only foolish because you have taken an anti-chaz stance, and you do not engage with anything I say. You ignore the details, and hold closely onto your own beliefs for fear of challenge.

Chaz, please read the posts you are replying to. Like I've said a couple of times now, religion is a source of charity not the source of charity.

Good, now you agree with my position. I knew I'd get there in the end.

Chaz, do you have a drinking problem?

Your position has been that religion is all bad and nothing good comes from it.

Now you're saying that religion is a source of charity?

If you now agree that religion is a source of charity, doesn't that mean religion is not all bad, thus defeating the point you've been making ad naseum for years?

Felasco wrote:

Chaz, please read the posts you are replying to. Like I've said a couple of times now, religion is a source of charity not the source of charity.

Good, now you agree with my position. I knew I'd get there in the end.

Chaz, do you have a drinking problem?

Your position has been that religion is all bad and nothing good comes from it.

Now you're saying that religion is a source of charity?

If you now agree that religion is a source of charity, doesn't that mean religion is not all bad, thus defeating the point you've been making ad naseum for years?

Chaz carries a torch!!! So he's just as wrong as those that justify the whole of religion because of a single unnecessarily related association such as charity. The fools that use grouping in order to qualify something are basic in deed. There are multitudes of constituents to be found in each individual, and singling out any particular one does not logically prove another. This foolish notion, obviously common to both sides of your argument, that all humans are, all logical, pays more homage to the human animal than it deserves. But of course you would believe this, as you are one, such that it suits your needs of self. It is absolutely not true that any particular constituent necessarily qualifies the existence of another, just because a selfish human groups them as such.

The human is just an animal, that does and says whatever it will, to satisfy it's selfish wants!

"We only deviate from our path of self, momentarily, just enough to satisfy another peripheral want, such that our close associations with others are merely an illusion, while multiple self interests collide."

Felasco wrote:

Chaz, please read the posts you are replying to. Like I've said a couple of times now, religion is a source of charity not the source of charity.

Good, now you agree with my position. I knew I'd get there in the end.

Chaz, do you have a drinking problem?

Your position has been that religion is all bad and nothing good comes from it.

I know what my position is.

Now you're saying that religion is a source of charity?

Aid is better than charity. FOr a range of reasons that I have already enumerated.


If you now agree that religion is a source of charity, doesn't that mean religion is not all bad, thus defeating the point you've been making ad naseum for years?

[edited by iMod]

Felasco wrote:I find it interesting that homo-haters, who almost always seem to be men, always reference male homosexuality, and never seem to recall that half the gays are lesbian. There might be a useful clue in there somewhere.

in part this is because a lot of men just dont even notice that women are there

also a lot of guys however homophobic like watching girls make out