Austin Atheists helping the homeless

Sapient's picture

I must've heard the words "an atheist can do no good" hundreds of times in the last few years.  It must be so hard to imagine how atheists can do good without the upstanding moral code imparted to us in the Bible or the Quran.  Sure I wouldn't sell my daughter into slavery, or kill a man simply for being gay, but I can do other good things instead. 

I'm proud to donate clothes to Goodwill and give money to charity.  But I take a bigger sense of pride in atheist volunteers which was created to unite and showcase acts of goodness by the men in black who apparently can do no good.  Well the door to that argument is being shut more and more everyday as atheists aren't as scared as they once were to show their face (we have religion to thank for our original fear).  We used to do acts of kindness simply because we liked doing acts of kindness.  But after being accused so often of being no-do-gooders some of us decided to show off what we've been doing all our lives while letting others know we don't believe in a god.  We believe good deeds are the work of men.  If good deeds are the works of god, well certainly bad deeds are as well.

I'm particularly excited about the recent developments in Austin with Texas American Atheist President Joe Zamecki at the helm.  He and his crew have been hitting the streets to hand out supply packages to the homeless.  Some interesting video has been shot along the way.  It's interesting to hear how often the homeless use the name Jesus or God in a positive manner while receiving free goods from a non-believer.  You'll have to check it out for yourself.  Details of the Austin Atheists Helping the Homeless are here.  (you can digg and stumble that page)

Thanks Joe, you're a blessing from your mom and dad!

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

Brian37's picture

WHAT KIND OF ATHEIST ARE

WHAT KIND OF ATHEIST ARE YOU! JEEBUS KRISTOS ON A CRACKER!

I bet you don't barbeque kittens. Thats it man, I've had it. Your cootie spreading membership has been revoked.

What is this world coming to if we don't live up to our stereotyps?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Sapient's picture

 Special thanks to David

 Special thanks to David Silverman and Hemant Mehta who recently covered the Austin Atheists Helping Hands effort and $370 was raised in the last 48 hours!

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

Vastet's picture

Sweet. A job well worth

Sweet. A job well worth doing. Smiling

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Interesting

I was very curious why you decided to put this on the front page of your website.  I find many things about it quite interesting.

As a Christian and in the church for over 40 years, I have not once heard even one preacher, teacher, or minister state that those who do not believe in God can do no good.  Even a basic course in theology will present that whereas we all sin, it does not mean that we all do every evil that is possible.  You accuse Christians of making up stories in order to promote their cause . . . I wonder if the same could be said about you.  It would be one thing for a misguided person to suggest that to you . . . but hundreds . . . WOW.  No one would argue that many, who did not believe in God, died in wars that were fought for good reasons.  Was that not for "good."  So, is it really news that some atheists helped some homeless people.

What I find most interesting is this.  Freud once wrote in a letter, "I consider myself to a very moral person who can subscribe to the excellent maxim of Th. Visher: 'What is moral is self-evident.' I believe that in a sense of justice and consideration for others, in dlislikeing making others suffer or taking advantage of them, I can measure myself with the best people I have known.  I have never done anything mean or malicious and cannot trace any temptation to do so."  Freud also stated that he did not obtain any "satisfaction in concluding I am better than most other people."

I have two responses to that premise.

1.  Freud was delusional.  You, and all on this site, are just as delusional as Freud if you really believe that you have never taken advantage of others.  Seriously, you have never hurt others or plotted against them???  You have never hated?  You have never done anything mean or malicious and never had a temptation to do so???  If you really believe that, you truly are delusional.  The very frist step in Christianity is an understanding to who we are . . . sinners.  That we ARE NOT GOOD.  The apostle Paul wrote, There is nothing good in me, in regard to my flesh.  So, the Christian is not attempting to prove he is good by the things that they do . . . he or she knows that they are not.  The good that Christians do is an overflow, not a proving. 

2.  The second response comes from reading C. S. Lewis.  "The claim to equality is made only by those who feel themselves to be in some way inferior."  From The Screwtape Letters - "No man who says I'm as good as you believes it.  He would never say it if he did.  A person who knows he is superior in an area never needs to point that out to others.  He merely accepts it."  So I wonder why you believe you need to put on the first page of your website, "Atheists help the homeless" and then promote the good that atheists do.  Your whole blog is simply - "Look we are just as good as the theists."  You prove this in your comment regarding the Bible and Quran.

3.  Lastly, I am confused why you would take pride in this, considering your worldview.  I know why you think it is good for people to help other people, but considering that our worldviews are nothing alike . . . why do you consider this so good that you take pride in it?

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Cpt_pineapple's picture

REVLyle wrote:As a Christian

REVLyle wrote:

As a Christian and in the church for over 40 years, I have not once heard even one preacher, teacher, or minister state that those who do not believe in God can do no good.  Even a basic course in theology will present that whereas we all sin, it does not mean that we all do every evil that is possible.  You accuse Christians of making up stories in order to promote their cause . . . I wonder if the same could be said about you.  It would be one thing for a misguided person to suggest that to you . . . but hundreds . . . WOW.  No one would argue that many, who did not believe in God, died in wars that were fought for good reasons.  Was that not for "good."  So, is it really news that some atheists helped some homeless people.

 

Anecdotes are invalid. To say the majority or minority of Christians are like X and then throw in an anecdote is invalid and unscientific.

 

REVLyle wrote:


3.  Lastly, I am confused why you would take pride in this, considering your worldview.  I know why you think it is good for people to help other people, but considering that our worldviews are nothing alike . . . why do you consider this so good that you take pride in it?

 

 

 

What in atheism prevents charitable giving?

 

 

 

 

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:REVLyle

Lyle, stop being such a dick.  He doesn't use his real name on this site.  Stop using your arguments as a breeding ground for your personal attack.  

[Mod Edit: approved by Sapient... if you have a problem with it, write him]

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Sapient's picture

REVLyle wrote:3.  Lastly, I

REVLyle wrote:

3.  Lastly, I am confused why you would take pride in this, considering your worldview.  I know why you think it is good for people to help other people, but considering that our worldviews are nothing alike . . . why do you consider this so good that you take pride in it?

You don't think it's obvious why someone would take pride in helping homeless people?  If you're looking for a scoop... here's one.   A few times that I've helped people in need, I felt incredible for being able to do so.  So incredible that I felt selfish, as if helping them brought me more joy than it brought them.  How could they possibly feel as good as me?  I felt great.  In Utah, I was coming back from an atheist meetup.  There was an extra steak and broccoli that hadn't been touched, and it was given to me to have as leftovers.  I already had dinner lined up, and would really be gorging myself if I fit that meal into my day (my last meal in town).  I'm not the kind of guy to hand cash to a homeless person to get food because I don't always trust that they'll use it on food.  

On the way to where I was staying I saw a homeless man.  It was obvious he had been on the streets for a while.  I could tell he was emaciated even though he was bundled up for the 20 degree weather.  I stopped the car, ran out, and handed him the leftovers.  The untouched 12 oz steak and full serving of steamed broc was probably one of his best meals in a long time.  I felt incredible when I handed it to him, and even better when I saw the smile on his face.  I got more out of it than I gave him.  So call me selfish... at least it results in some good.  My worldview includes the concept of helping people less fortunate than me, especially because/when it feels good to do so.  

As for your gripe that Christians admit that they're sinners and I don't... or something like that.  You should know, I don't think I'm perfect.  I don't use the word "sin" but I'm the first to admit I've made mistakes in life.  My worldview includes the idea that I should learn from my mistakes, and therefore attempt to use all mistakes as a learning experience.  Christians see their mistakes and admit they are sinners; I use my mistakes and see a chance to improve myself.

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

smartypants's picture

 This is a really nice

 This is a really nice story. It occurred to me that maybe we don't hear about this happening more often because first of all, atheists don't really have the need to gather together based on their beliefs (aside from forums like this one, obviously) into an organization that would actively promote their good works. One of the only reasons to do it in an organized fashion--rather than to individually give the homeless guy your steak without fanfare, for instance--would seem to be to make some kind of a statement about atheists.

A few problems with your logic

All Christians are like, and becoming more like Christ.  If they are not, they are not Christians no matter what they claim to be.  Your logic would be like saying, "All babies are not like humans."  In much the same way as all Christians are like Christ, babies must mature, therefore all humans are not in the same place in maturity, but they are still humans.  All Christians are like Christ and are in different stages of maturity.

Cpt., as I stated before - there is nothing scientific in this entire thread.  This is philosophical.  If you cannot grasp that and the best you can do is call me names and remove what I wrote - I am sorry for you.

The problem is that Brian is attempting to paint Christians as people who do not believe that atheists can do "good."  I am putting that in quotes for a reason.  That belief simply is not true.  It is an illogical statement.  I do not believe that 100's of people have said that to him.  I have never even known a person, theist or atheist, that would put forth such a proposition about the opposing view.  We all, especially since you claim atheists are so plentiful, know people who do not believe in God who care for their children, work hard, love their spouse, etc . . . All of these things are considered "good."  What would probably be NEWS on this site is . . . "Theists do good."  All I ever read here is that theists are responsible for all the world's problems, they are delusional, brain washing their kids, imposing their beliefs on others, etc . . .  but enough of that.  I believe Brain's story is fabricated in order to promote the cause as stated before.

The reason I asked Brian why he thought it was good is that he would reject my reason for thinking it was "good."  Brian does not believe in God and therefore he does not believe in a higher standard of good and bad.  It is simply a personal belief and not a standard in which he can measure his belief.  By what standard does he proclaim that feeding homeless people is "good."  For instance, since he does not believe in God and he believes in Darwinian evolution - why help out the homeless.  Are they not a drain on resources?  They are losers.  Does he not understand that by helping them survive - they will be given the further opportunity to perpetuate their genes and dilute the gene pool.  They even made comments about God - as he stated.  If he would let them starve - there are less people to perpetuate this "delusion."  Of course I do not believe any of this that I just wrote - but I do not belive in evolution and I do believe in God.  All of his actions fly in the face of a true evolutionist.  It makes no sense at all.

Brian, I will say this.  Man, help them.  Help those who are less fortunate than you.  I look at the fact that I eat three meals a day, and I get on my knees and thank God.  You might say . . . well you work hard and you have made your way in this world.  I would immediately counter that with, there are many who work hard and have less.  There are people who do not have the mental capacity to go to college or the opportunity.  Why me???  Because God allowed me - period.  I did not choose my mind, my place to be born, my parents, my country, etc . . . God did that for me.  Why - I cannot answer that question, I am simply grateful for what He has done for me.  Some in the world have more, some less - but I am grateful.  I know that when I show mercy, it is because I serve a merciful God.  Why is it that all humans desire truth, mercy, grace, life, love, etc . . . ?  It is because they are created in the image of a creator who is all of these things?  You demonstrated mercy to people who have less, because that is already hard-wired in you.  You felt good because you did what was right.  You also would want others to show mercy to you if you were in need.  You might have experienced that mercy when you were beat-up. 

My question for you Brian - is why.  Why do you feel that is right - and how would you answer the pure Darwinian who thinks it is a waste?  Why is what you did "good" and the person who thinks it is a waste "bad - less good - or it is simply wrong?"  What I see is a colision of worldviews.  You cannot truly believe survival of the fittest and then help those who can do nothing to benefit you.  If there is a benefit - other than good feelings (which have nothing to do with survival) then please tell me what the benefit is.  You wasted your time, resources, and perpetuated the genes of those who believe in God.  Not good for the atheist's cause.

 

[EDITED PERSONAL INFORMATION OUT AGAIN]

 

Cpt., you were wrong for deleting my post.  [CAPTAIN, Isn't a mod.  You are wrong for accusing him] 

[edited out info that should've been sent to Sapient via email]

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Rev,Let me see if I've got

Rev,

Let me see if I've got this straight...

You're kvetching and moaning because charitable people helped those in need- how like Jesus is this?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture

REVLyle wrote:The problem is

REVLyle wrote:

The problem is that Brian is attempting to paint Christians as people who do not believe that atheists can do "good."  I am putting that in quotes for a reason.  That belief simply is not true.  It is an illogical statement.  I do not believe that 100's of people have said that to him. 

No he is stating his personal experience in the matter, and Sapient is much to logicall to claim that all Christians are as such.  In the last 2 years I can say atleast 20 theists I have spoken to have claimed something along the lines of "athiests can't do good" whichever way they worded it.  Sapient is much more active than I am ofcourse, and so I would expect his results to be more colourful than mine and so hundreds is not at all unbelievable. 

 

REVLyle wrote:

 "Theists do good." 

Ofcourse they do!!!  I don't think any rational person on this site would claim that theists "do no good" ever.  This is rediculous.  This is because people can be good either way, and good Christians/Atheist do good things, and bad ones do bad things.  This is further evidence that "GOD" has nothing to do with our internal morality, and that we decide that on our own.

 

REVLyle wrote:

All I ever read here is that theists are responsible for all the world's problems, they are delusional, brain washing their kids, imposing their beliefs on others, etc . . . 

 

They do! This does not make them "bad people", many are good people that are simply misguided and misinformed.

 

REVLyle wrote:

By what standard does he proclaim that feeding homeless people is "good." 

By his own internal moral standard ofcourse, end of story!!!  It is obvious that people NEED food to survive, and when faced with an opportunity to feed someone in need, it is obvious that it is moraly correct to do so, barring the fact it does not hurt anyone else significantly.  What exactly is your point???

REVLyle wrote:

but I do not belive in evolution and I do believe in God. 

Why???  Please elaborate on why you don't believe in evolution.

 

REVLyle wrote:

Brian, I will say this.  Man, help them.  Help those who are less fortunate than you.  I look at the fact that I eat three meals a day, and I get on my knees and thank God.  You might say . . . well you work hard and you have made your way in this world.  I would immediately counter that with, there are many who work hard and have less.  There are people who do not have the mental capacity to go to college or the opportunity.  Why me???  Because God allowed me - period. 

 

Ahhh, your a dumbdumb, I see...  The arrogance of someone who believes god has given them special advantages will always make me giggle/queeze a little. Cute, yes god helped you, haha.

REVLyle wrote:

I did not choose my mind, my place to be born, my parents, my country, etc . . . God did that for me. 

 

Could I see some evidence for that claim please???

REVLyle wrote:

 I know that when I show mercy, it is because I serve a merciful God. 

 

Merciful?  Is merciful drowning every man woman child and animal on the planet?  Is merciful killing first born children for their parents actions?  Is merciful being guilty of gencide and crimes against man of massive porportion?  Is merciful... aww fuckit you get the point, your gods a dick, and so are you for alligning your moral

standards with him.

REVLyle wrote:

You demonstrated mercy to people who have less, because that is already hard-wired in you. 

 

Not hardwired, evloved into him over a vast amount of time.  You can see the very same mercy and kindness demonstrated in chimps, not mind the fact my dog is merciful and kind, did "your" god give some animals this ability aswell?

Sapient's picture

REVLyle wrote:The problem is

REVLyle wrote:

The problem is that Brian is attempting to paint Christians as people who do not believe that atheists can do "good."  I am putting that in quotes for a reason.  That belief simply is not true.  It is an illogical statement.

It's also not what I said.  You do this often, misinterpret and misconstrue facts.

 

Quote:

I do not believe that 100's of people have said that to him.  

I've heard it or read it coming from the mouths or pens of Christians no less than 500 times in the last 10 years.  I was being conservative, I still am.  It could be in the thousands, I'm not sure.

 

Your point was pointless, I think you were simply being a Debbie Downer.  

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.

Amazing

Hard to know where to start since this post is so full of problems.

Let me address a few. 

When I wrote, "I thank God for what he has done for me."  It is amazing that you interpret that as arrogance.  The person who is on their knees thanking God is arrogant, but the one who claims . . . I did it all on my own is not????  Wow.  Tell me - how did you pick your abilities, strengths and weaknesses.  When did you choose where you were born and how did you pick your parents.  You simply believe it was chance or fate.  I do not.  Since I believe that God is in control of it all, when I look at my family, my wife and kids, I am thankful to God.  How you can interpret that as arrogance is amazing to me.  It is in fact, humility. 

You wrote:  Merciful?  Is merciful drowning every man woman child and animal on the planet?  Is merciful killing first born children for their parents actions?  Is merciful being guilty of genocide and crimes against man of massive proportion?

If you are going to address issues in the Bible, you might want to get it right or at the very least - put it in context.  Let's address your first issue.  Again, I know you do not believe in the Bible, but you seem quite able to put things out of context.  Is merciful drowning every man, woman, child, and animal on the planet.  Well, first of all God did not.  He saved some of mankind and he saved some of the animal kingdom.  God was merciful.  You might say - OK - He killed almost all of them.  The Bible certainly presents that fact.  But let's look at what scripture says.  In Genesis 6:5 it says:  The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was ONLY EVIL CONTINUALLY.  So NMCP, was God merciful . . . I believe so.  This thread began because of some good that atheists did.  You admitted that both theists and atheists do good.  If at that time all that was thought of was evil - what would it be like today if that would have continued.  God got rid of it.  Is it merciful for us to put to death a serial killer.  Absolutely.  It makes others safe - keeps them from harm.  It demonstrates to others that human life is sacred.  So, NMCP - you failed to mention who God was putting to death.  It always helps if you tell the entire story.

Oh yes, killing the first born children for their parent's action.  You might want to look that one up as well.  Egypt prospered because of the Israelites.  The Israelites only did one thing wrong in the sight of Egypt . . . they multiplied.  For no reason at all, except they were worried that the Israelites MIGHT join their enemies - Pharaoh enslaved them.  It is amazing that you want to discuss Exodus 12 - but you never mentioned Exodus 1.  It was Pharaoh who ordered the death of ALL Hebrew males.  You might want to go back to Genesis 41 to see God's mercy on Pharaoh as well.  Again, you fail to mention this.  Let's get back to your question.  God simply wanted Pharaoh to let the Hebrew people go.  He no longer wanted them enslaved.  Did God just all of a sudden, kill all the first born.  Come on NMCP . . . you know the answer.  There were 9 other plagues in order to get Pharaoh to release the people, and he would not.  It was not until something as drastic as the killing of the first born that Pharaoh finally relented. 

What about a modern day example . . . how about the dropping of the atomic bombs.  It was merciful for us to drop those bombs.  Do you realize it took 2 for Japan to finally relent????  Even this past year, when Obama when to Japan the question was asked if the US was justified to drop those bombs.  I find it amazing that people, like you NMCP, fail to see the bigger picture.  I am ready for just one president to ask the question, "Was it justified for Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor?"  Even after the Japanese army was practically defeated - they would not surrender.  Even after one bomb was dropped, they would not surrender.  Again, it took 2.  It took the death of the first born for Pharaoh to surrender.

You will have to be more specific when you speak of crimes against man and genocide.  You have already proven your inability to present the entire picture, so I will not address this last comment until more details are given.

If you are suggesting that animals are merciful, I believe you will have to redefine mercy.  I am not sure that particular part of your post is worth addressing.  In whatever you are referring to, can you prove that their motive was mercy?????

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture

Excuse me as I lean back and

Excuse me as I lean back and crack my nuckles. 

REVLyle wrote:

When I wrote, "I thank God for what he has done for me."  It is amazing that you interpret that as arrogance. 

Let me quote you

REVLyle wrote:

There are people who do not have the mental capacity to go to college or the opportunity.  Why me???  Because God allowed me - period.

Awww, did gawwd give you speciow priwowidges widdle buddy, does he wike you betta.  And so he just let others not have the same right to food and education as you?  Hmmm,  this stinks of arrogance

 

 

REVLyle wrote:

 Is merciful drowning every man, woman, child, and animal on the planet.  Well, first of all God did not.  He saved some of mankind and he saved some of the animal kingdom.  God was merciful. 

Your right God mercifully saved 1 average drunk and his family and 2 of every animal out of millions of people and billions of animals, man nice guy.  If that's your definition of mercy then you sir are sick.  Let's continue and find out exaclty why you think it is ok to completely obliterate life on the planet.   

REVLyle wrote:

let's look at what scripture says.  In Genesis 6:5 it says:  The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was ONLY EVIL CONTINUALLY.  So NMCP, was God merciful . . . I believe so. 

Ahhh, cuz it says in genesis people were all bad back then, wow that is a good reason to KILL E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G. So what exactly did the animals do then?  Were the ferrits not being good little ferrits.  You twisted little twerp.  And so ladies and gentlemen we have  the definition of mercy by REVlyle that when people are acting up KILL EVERYTHING but save a few average people, that should do the trick. Would you call it "merciful genocide", dickhead!

REVLyle wrote:

- you failed to mention who God was putting to death.  It always helps if you tell the entire story.

I'm sorry i do not know the exact numbers off hand but I believe the Christian god's kill count according to their own documents is somewhere around 400,000.  This is only counting instances in which actall numbers are either discussed or can be determined fairly accuratley using reason.  So pick any of them, or all of them. 

REVLyle wrote:

  God simply wanted Pharaoh to let the Hebrew people go.  He no longer wanted them enslaved.  Did God just all of a sudden, kill all the first born.  Come on NMCP . . . you know the answer.  There were 9 other plagues in order to get Pharaoh to release the people, and he would not.  It was not until something as drastic as the killing of the first born that Pharaoh finally relented. 

How pathetic and twisted is your god that all he can muster up as a plan to get his people out is  plagues.  Did your god not create the universe, why didn't he just float them out on a magic carpet.  And their is absolutely nothing merciful about god killing first born children no matter what the backdrop, and thats where you fail miserably as a human.  Can you imagine "GOD" the most powerful creature killing (or sending angels to kill yaddayadda) a little child the most fragile and innocent, how terrible of a person you are to defend these stories as ok, and claim your god has merciful, you are indeed twisted.

 

REVLyle wrote:

If you are suggesting that animals are merciful, I believe you will have to redefine mercy.  I am not sure that particular part of your post is worth addressing.  In whatever you are referring to, can you prove that their motive was mercy?????

I'm using your quote stated just prior to define the context of mercy you were explaining.  You said to Sapient about giving his steak to the homeless man "

REVLyle wrote:

You demonstrated mercy to people who have less, because that is already hard-wired in you. 

This is how you used the word mercy, in that Sapient was merciful to give his steak to the homeless man.  So we'll go off of what you said.   I have personally witnessed my dog giving (or allowing) a portion of his food to his best friend our cat.  I've seen documentaries of much more obvious examples of this in chimps.  One in particular I always remember was of a older female chimp with a couple nuts she collected but coudn't find a stone to crack them with.  She was old and was taking care of a young one, she approached a male who was currently cracking his own nut shells.  She looked at him with very humble eyes and asked him without words if she could borrow the stone, he looked almost annoyed with her but she hugged him and he gave her the stone.  Their non-verbal communication that was cought on camera I found fascinating, like looking into a mirror of how our eyes move when we are communicating something.  He really did despite the fact he was currently goerging himself gave the stone to the needier of the two, and their was no denying he understood what he was doing.     

 

butterbattle's picture

REVLyle wrote:As a Christian

REVLyle wrote:
As a Christian and in the church for over 40 years, I have not once heard even one preacher, teacher, or minister state that those who do not believe in God can do no good.

Christians don't think that atheists can't do ANY good, but many Christians, perhaps even most Christians, think that atheists are, generally, less good than Christians. I didn't there was any disagreement there.   

REVLyle wrote:
1.  Freud was delusional.  You, and all on this site, are just as delusional as Freud if you really believe that you have never taken advantage of others.  Seriously, you have never hurt others or plotted against them???  You have never hated?  You have never done anything mean or malicious and never had a temptation to do so???

I've definitely personally harbored hatred against others, taken advantage of people, etc. , so I would be lying if I made such a claim myself, but I see no reason why such a feat could not be accomplished by a certain minority of people, at least within their memory.

REVLyle wrote:
2.  The second response comes from reading C. S. Lewis.  "The claim to equality is made only by those who feel themselves to be in some way inferior."  From The Screwtape Letters - "No man who says I'm as good as you believes it.  He would never say it if he did.  A person who knows he is superior in an area never needs to point that out to others.  He merely accepts it."

I'm not sure I why should accept such broad, absolute statements on human psychology just because they were made by C.S. Lewis.

REVLyle wrote:
So I wonder why you believe you need to put on the first page of your website, "Atheists help the homeless" and then promote the good that atheists do.  Your whole blog is simply - "Look we are just as good as the theists."

Yes, because many theists (Christians, particularly, in America) believe that we are not as moral.

REVLyle wrote:
3.  Lastly, I am confused why you would take pride in this, considering your worldview.  I know why you think it is good for people to help other people, but considering that our worldviews are nothing alike . . . why do you consider this so good that you take pride in it?

I don't get it. Why can't we take pride in helping others? 

I personally take great pride in my extensive community service record. Is this an irrational emotion for atheists to feel when they do community service or something?

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare

Kapkao's picture

smartypants wrote: This is

smartypants wrote:

 This is a really nice story. It occurred to me that maybe we don't hear about this happening more often because first of all, atheists don't really have the need to gather together based on their beliefs (aside from forums like this one, obviously) into an organization that would actively promote their good works. One of the only reasons to do it in an organized fashion--rather than to individually give the homeless guy your steak without fanfare, for instance--would seem to be to make some kind of a statement about atheists.

Take it from my theist friend: you don't hear about baby loss because baby loss is taboo. Baby loss is..... MURDER!!!!1

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

butterbattle's picture

Oh! Fun conversation.Well, I

Oh! Fun conversation.

Well, I can't speak for Brian, but here goes...

REVLyle wrote:
Brian does not believe in God and therefore he does not believe in a higher standard of good and bad.  It is simply a personal belief and not a standard in which he can measure his belief.  By what standard does he proclaim that feeding homeless people is "good."  For instance, since he does not believe in God and he believes in Darwinian evolution - why help out the homeless.  Are they not a drain on resources?  They are losers.  Does he not understand that by helping them survive - they will be given the further opportunity to perpetuate their genes and dilute the gene pool.  They even made comments about God - as he stated.  If he would let them starve - there are less people to perpetuate this "delusion."  Of course I do not believe any of this that I just wrote - but I do not belive in evolution and I do believe in God.  All of his actions fly in the face of a true evolutionist.  It makes no sense at all.

You stated, "All of his actions fly in the face of a true evolutionist." I'm not sure what a "true evolutionist" is, but being a proponent of the current theory of biological evolution only entails that you agree that organisms evolved from a common ancestor and, roughly, the prevailing theory concerning the process. Deriving any claims about morality from this would constitute a naturalistic fallacy. It does not follow from the fact that organisms that are better adapted to their environment survive, that the better adapted organisms 'ought' to survive. 

I am a moral subjectivist, (I also like utilitarianism, but, obviously, if I'm a subjectivist, then I'm a subjectivist before I'm anything else) so yes, the idea that helping others is good is my personal belief. You said, "Are they not a drain on resources?" and "dilute the gene pool." They do drain resources, assuming that they haven't done much work, and they do dilute the gene pool, assuming that their genes result in laziness or stupidity or something (big assumption, obviously. They could be smart and work really hard and still be homeless. You really can't assume that their genes are bad because they're homeless.) But, ultimately, these are statements of truth; they are not moral claims. Your hypothetical argument only works if Brian personally thinks that draining resources + diluting the gene pool is enough reason to NOT help them. 

That's definitely not enough for me, especially considering "diluting the gene pool" contains some big assumptions.

But really, I just like helping others.

REVLyle wrote:
My question for you Brian - is why.  Why do you feel that is right - and how would you answer the pure Darwinian who thinks it is a waste?  Why is what you did "good" and the person who thinks it is a waste "bad - less good - or it is simply wrong?"  What I see is a colision of worldviews.  You cannot truly believe survival of the fittest and then help those who can do nothing to benefit you.  If there is a benefit - other than good feelings (which have nothing to do with survival) then please tell me what the benefit is.  You wasted your time, resources, and perpetuated the genes of those who believe in God.  Not good for the atheist's cause.

You said, "You cannot truly believe survival of the fittest and then help those who can do nothing to benefit you." Again, evolution does not dictate what we ought to do; it only describes what actually occurs in nature.

Let's say that in extremely cold regions of the world, creatures with the thickest blubber, fur, etc. are more likely to survive. This does not mean that if lived in Alaska, it would be moral for me to kill the next guy I see that's not wearing a jacket. Female praying mantises eat male praying mantises after they mate. This does not mean that I should endorse cannibalism. Similarly, accepting evolution do not formulate some prescription about how I should treat other human beings. It is merely an acceptance of reality. 

Our general desire to help other humans can be explained by evolution too. As you might know from Prisoner's Dilemma, everyone gets a lot of points if you play 'cooperate' with the same few people over and over again. When we lived in small tribes, if you help people that are in trouble, you 1) Increase the likelihood of them helping you when you're in trouble. Reciprocal altruism. 2) Improve the general welfare of the group, which leads to improving your own welfare, since you are part of the group. | So, in such a setting, not helping others will actually hurt your chances of survival. You'll always have a lower chance of survival by yourself than as part of a group; that's obvious.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare

smartypants's picture

Kapkao wrote:smartypants

Kapkao wrote:

smartypants wrote:

 This is a really nice story. It occurred to me that maybe we don't hear about this happening more often because first of all, atheists don't really have the need to gather together based on their beliefs (aside from forums like this one, obviously) into an organization that would actively promote their good works. One of the only reasons to do it in an organized fashion--rather than to individually give the homeless guy your steak without fanfare, for instance--would seem to be to make some kind of a statement about atheists.

Take it from my theist friend: you don't hear about baby loss because baby loss is taboo. Baby loss is..... MURDER!!!!1

Ummm..."baby loss??"

What I wrote was edited.

I have not moaned because  homeless people were helped.  The mod has become a sensor.  I wrote this to Brian.  "Help them and continue helping them.  It is the right thing to do."  That is not word for word, but it was something like that.  Knowing how much the mod loves to edit me, he won't let this go either.  It is amazing that if I use Brians real name - it is cut out of the post, but others here can call me or God any name they like and it is fine.  Quite a double standard.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

REVLyle wrote:I have not

REVLyle wrote:

I have not moaned because  homeless people were helped.  The mod has become a sensor.  I wrote this to Brian.  "Help them and continue helping them.  It is the right thing to do."  That is not word for word, but it was something like that.  Knowing how much the mod loves to edit me, he won't let this go either.  It is amazing that if I use Brians real name - it is cut out of the post, but others here can call me or God any name they like and it is fine.  Quite a double standard.

You haven't moaned because they were helped - you just aren't happy with who's helping them because they don't have your version of Jesus (be it the version of the gospels or the one in Paul's writings).

Which one is your version, by the way?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Almost . . . almost laughable.

You wrote:  She (a chimp) was old and was taking care of a young one, she approached a male who was currently cracking his own nut shells.  She looked at him with very humble eyes and asked him without words if she could borrow the stone.

I was not sure if I need a tissue because I was laughing at what you wrote or because I feel so sorry for you.  The chimp looked with very humble eyes - that is hilarious.  So now these animals are not just merciful, they are humble as well.  Perhaps you can tell us some more stories about animals and their personalities, but hey . . . A+ for creativity.  The personification of animals works great in Hollywood, but it is not reality. 

You know, I sense a pattern here.  You can't tell the whole story from the Bible and you can't seem to even tell the whole story from a simple post.  What you failed to quote:

I am simply grateful for what He has done for me.  Some in the world have more, some less - but I am grateful.  Your response:  Awww, did gawwd give you speciow priwowidges widdle buddy, does he wike you betta.  And so he just let others not have the same right to food and education as you?  Hmmm,  this stinks of arrogance

Define better (or in your case betta).  According to your interpretation, I also wrote that God likes others better than me, because they have more.  Of course you have no idea what God is like . . . The reality is that some may look at my situation and think that I have not been blessed with much, because they have more.  The apostle Paul stated in Philippians - I know how to be brought low and I know how to abound.  In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need.  I do not believe that God likes me better.  He has placed me where I am for a reason.  I have had much less and I have had more . . . but it is of no consequence to me. 

There is a story of a man who complained about having no feet, until he met the man who had no legs.  We could all look at the problems in our life and complain, but God knows what He is doing.  If you define better as having money, power, etc . . . I could give you quotes of people who had all those things and yet; they were empty on the inside and looking for something more.  I can also tell you of people who have very little and yet they feel very blessed.  So, who is better off?  Your assumption is completely wrong.  I do not believe I am better.  I know that I am a very sinful man, but God has had mercy upon me even though I have sinned against Him.

Did God save an average drunk guy?  Noah did get drunk, we know that.  But scripture says something much different.  Genesis 6:9 - These are the generations of Noah.  Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation.  Noah walked with God.  Again, I know you do not believe the Bible, but if you are going to discuss the Bible you need to:

1.  Not just make things up

2.  Not just echo what you have heard

3.  Pick up a Bible and read it

You wrote:  Ahhh, cuz it says in genesis people were all bad back then, wow that is a good reason to KILL E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G.  

Let's remember that you brought up these Biblical stories . . . I didn't.  So, if you are going to discuss them, get it right.  It doesn't just say they were bad.  It says "every intention of the thoughts of his (man's) heart was ONLY evil continually."  So whereas people today may do some bad things, lie cheat, steal . . . they may also do good things - such as help the homeless or be kind to their neighbor.  That is not the case presented by Genesis.  EVERY intention, ONLY evil - Continually.  If there was a group of people who only thought of killing, torturing, raping your loved ones . . . would killing them be the merciful thing to do?  It would then keep your parents, spouse, children, friends . . . safe.  If you think allowing these "bad" people to live and continue to plot against you would be wise and merciful. . . well, that is your problem.  In Genesis, instead of allowing them to continue to live - God removed them from the planet. 

You asked:  Were the ferrits not being good little ferrits.

So, concerned about the animals . . . God tells us in Genesis 1:28 to subdue it all.  The earth, the fish, the livestock, the birds, and every living thing.  Animals do not act bad or good.  There is no morality among animals.  They are simply . . . animals.  I see you have dogs, so do I.  I take care of them.  I feed them, take them to the vet, etc . . . but they are animals.  Again, God preserved what he wanted and that is that.  We are never told and I have never proposed that God had mercy on animals.  All of nature is simply here to be utilized by man for the good of man.  It feeds him, clothes him, etc . . . Man is not here for the animals.  God said, "I give it all to you (man).  Once again . . . God provides all that we need to survive, multiply, and thrive.

Since you watch the animal documentaries, you are aware that when a lion takes over a pride of females - he immediately kills all the cubs so that the female is ready to mate quicker.  Have you notice that the male has no problem killing these young, cute, innocent lions. (extra adjectives to speak your language).  Just, curious does he feel any guilt in that?  You seem to know if an animal is merciful or humble.  What about guilty?  The lioness, who attempts to protect her cubs from the new dominant male, then comes into heat only weeks after the male killed her cubs and she mates with him.  That is simply sick isn't it NMCP???  I mean, I am sure that lioness is sad and mourns the loss of 2 or 3 little cute, cuddly cubs and she is furious with the cruel male lion for doing such an imoral thing.  Is the lion mean and cruel?  Is the lioness disappointed after losing her offspring.  Is that what the commentator told you when you were watching the show?  Evidently, the lioness was not too upset since she is ready to mate with her cub's murderer in only a matter of weeks.  Again, animals are animals. 

You wrote:  How pathetic and twisted is your god that all he can muster up as a plan to get his people out is  plagues.

So, the problem is that God did not get his people out the way you would have done it.  Interesting.  I wonder why he used plagues as well.  He could have simply killed them all on the spot for not honoring His request the first time . . . but He didn't.  Sounds like mercy to me.  God is freeing His people from a man (government) that attempted to kill not the first born, but all Jewish males.  The Jews did absolutely nothing to the Egyptians.  They were not the enemy.  They just lived there.  But you have no condemnation for Pharaoh.  I do not know if you are an American or not, but do you suppose that infants were killed when we dropped two bombs on Japan.  Was the US justified?  Perhaps there were other ways.  Just curious, who is responsible for the deaths of the infants that died in those bomb blasts?  Was it the US or Japan?  The only right answer is Japan.  They attacked.  They would not surrender.  They would not even surrender when all the "innocent" people died after the first bomb was dropped.  Just think all of the people who were victims.  They could have been spared if only Japan would not have attacked.  Do you ever watch the news?  There are men, who shoot rockets across the boarder at Israel and then run and hide in homes filled with women and children.  What is amazing is that you (according to your logic) would blame Israel when they respond to kill the men who shot at them, and women and children are killed.   

The same can be said for Egypt.  Pharaoh could have spared his entire country if he simply would not have enslaved the Hebrew people.  He could have spared his entire people all of the plagues and the killing of the first born, but he would not relent.  Egypt was not attacked and their land was not being taken.  All Pharaoh had to do was let enslaved people go.  Where is your condemnation of Egypt and the heartlessness of a man who killed babies right out of the womb and enslaved people.  Where is your condemnation of a man who did not care enough about his own country that he allowed them to suffer during plague after plague.  Each time he had an opportunity to allow the Jews to leave - but he chose to have his people suffer. 

You wrote:  Can you imagine "GOD" the most powerful creature killing (or sending angels to kill yaddayadda) a little child the most fragile and innocent, how terrible of a person you are to defend these stories as ok, and claim your god has merciful, you are indeed twisted.  Once again you assume too much.  Who said all these first born were fragile, innocent, and children.  The first born in my family is 50.  Perhaps some of them were the very ones who enforced the enslavement of the Jews. 

What is clear is that you have never read the Bible, you simply know some things about it and even that knowledge is distorted.  Your logic is poor and your arguments weak.  By the way, you can stop the name calling.  There is no point to it.  I think we are pretty much done here.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

100% assumption

jcgadfly wrote:

REVLyle wrote:

I have not moaned because  homeless people were helped.  The mod has become a sensor.  I wrote this to Brian.  "Help them and continue helping them.  It is the right thing to do."  That is not word for word, but it was something like that.  Knowing how much the mod loves to edit me, he won't let this go either.  It is amazing that if I use Brians real name - it is cut out of the post, but others here can call me or God any name they like and it is fine.  Quite a double standard.

You haven't moaned because they were helped - you just aren't happy with who's helping them because they don't have your version of Jesus (be it the version of the gospels or the one in Paul's writings).

Which one is your version, by the way?

Never said it . . . never implied it.  I am glad they were helped.  I do not care who helped them or what the helpers believe.  I have done charity work with people that did not believe as I do.  It did not matter to me at all.  At that point in time the job was to help the less fortunate.  I was not there to promote a worldview and neither were others.  I always want to share my faith with people, but there is a time and place.  I do not care who helps the people in Haiti, just help them.  I am not a cold man and I do not believe that unbelievers are cold people.  My questions are from a philosophical standpoint.  That is all.

As far as Gospels and Paul - the same Jesus.  This is most likely NOT the thread to begin that conversation - but I will be glad to answer whatever you might want to ask.  I do not know how to begin that conversation, but perhaps you do.  Jesus is the same through the entire NT.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture

REVLyle wrote:  The chimp

REVLyle wrote:

  The chimp looked with very humble eyes - that is hilarious. 

Why?  Its the best way I can describe her expression and body language.  What is hilarious about a chimp appearing to show humility?

 

REVLyle wrote:

I am simply grateful for what He has done for me.  Some in the world have more, some less - but I am grateful.  Your response:  Awww, did gawwd give you speciow priwowidges widdle buddy, does he wike you betta.  And so he just let others not have the same right to food and education as you?  Hmmm,  this stinks of arrogance

First of all That's NOT what I replied that to so get your quotes in order and don't misrepresent me.  You said 

"There are people who do not have the mental capacity to go to college or the opportunity.  Why me???  Because God allowed me - period."

 

REVLyle wrote:

Again, I know you do not believe the Bible, but if you are going to discuss the Bible you need to:

1.  Not just make things up

I didn't

REVLyle wrote:

2.  Not just echo what you have heard

I didn't

REVLyle wrote:

3.  Pick up a Bible and read it

I have many times, its a crappy read.  In fact I had the bible read to me 13 times over cover to cover when I was a child, and read most of it myself.  Verdict, garbage.  Utter crap, really!!!

REVLyle wrote:

It doesn't just say they were bad.  It says "every intention of the thoughts of his (man's) heart was ONLY evil continually." 

So kids and everything, 2 month olds, etc...  Every living person on earth but that average drunk was pure evil, haha yyyup, that makes sense.  Give your head a shake.

REVLyle wrote:

 If there was a group of people who only thought of killing, torturing, raping your loved ones

Again your saying every man, woman, child, and baby in Noah's time wanted to kill, torture and rape people.  Again your a cook pal.  

REVLyle wrote:

We are never told and I have never proposed that God had mercy on animals.

Funny thing is if you were told to propose that by your church you would.  "We are never told," cccreepy.    

 

REVLyle wrote:

 God is freeing His people from a man (government) that attempted to kill not the first born, but all Jewish males.  The Jews did absolutely nothing to the Egyptians.  They were not the enemy.  They just lived there.  But you have no condemnation for Pharaoh. 

If the story was true, ofcourse, why wouldn't I?  I am against anyone doing bad things to others.  So....

 

REVLyle wrote:

  There are men, who shoot rockets across the boarder at Israel and then run and hide in homes filled with women and children.  What is amazing is that you (according to your logic) would blame Israel when they respond to kill the men who shot at them, and women and children are killed.

This is by far the dumbest and worsed comparison I've ever heard to the story of Noah.  You say "respond", why would I come down on Isreal for responding to the attacks rationally and ethically.  I would however find it terrible if Isreal just started blowing up homes killing innocent people trying to get them, yes, your point?

REVLyle wrote:

The same can be said for Egypt.  Pharaoh could have spared his entire country if he simply would not have enslaved the Hebrew people.  He could have spared his entire people all of the plagues and the killing of the first born, but he would not relent. 

Why would your god need permission from Pharaoh to release his people.  How week is your god?  Again I ask, why didn't he just "poof" them somewhere else. 

REVLyle wrote:

  Where is your condemnation of Egypt and the heartlessness of a man who killed babies right out of the womb and enslaved people. 

Ofcourse he's a dick to.  Again what is your point, so know I have to list everysingle person I find has questionable morals to question your god's morals.  He was a man, men can be bad.  We are speaking of the morality of your so called "Perfect" god.  A god that you want me to believe in and worship.  I'm sorry but your comparisons are just the worst. 

REVLyle wrote:

What is clear is that you have never read the Bible,

Again I have many times over and I find it pathetic anyone see's any real value in it.  Ofcourse I haven't touch the book in over 10 years and my knowledge is rusty.  This is because i specifically avo=id that garbage piece of literature and hopefully one day all "the stupid" it put in my head is finally gone.

You failed to answer even one question

NMCP, when you see this symbol "?" that is a question.  You didn't answer even one.

I wrote all of this in within one paragraph. 

 There are people who do not have the mental capacity to go to college or the opportunity.  Why me???  Because God allowed me - period.  I did not choose my mind, my place to be born, my parents, my country, etc . . . God did that for me.  Why - I cannot answer that question, I am simply grateful for what He has done for me.  Some in the world have more, some less - but I am grateful. 

What you did was proof text in order to make it appear I said something else.  The thought is continued over the next two sentences.  You will notice that I asked "WHY" again.

You did make things up.  From your first post:

 Is merciful drowning every man woman child and animal on the planet? - Please show me that in scripture.  The Bible never makes that claim. 

AND THEN LATER:

Your right God mercifully saved 1 average drunk and his family and 2 of every animal out of millions of people and billions of animals, man nice guy. - Please show me where the Bible describes Noah as you have and 2 of every animal.  The Bible does not describe Noah this way.  Did you know him?  Do you have another source that describes him as you have.  The Bible also tells us that it was 1 pair of every unclean animal and 7 pair of every clean animal.   

Again, I know you and others do not believe the Bible, but if you are going to reference it . . . get it right.

I will take your word for it that you read it, but you evidently do not remember it.

I never said that every child wanted to kill and rape . . . it was an analogy in modern times.  A two month old is not cognitive of his or her thoughts.  So, I guess what you are proposing is that perhaps the grown ups were evil, but the babies were not - So God should just deal with the Parents.  Let's look at some options.

1.  Perhaps the parents were killing the babies.  If the parents were evil, were they taking care of the 2 month old or was the 2 month old being abused?  We know that Pharaoh was capable of killing infants.

2.  Perhaps they cared for their children and now as the 2 month of grows up - they are taught evil.  That is what you guys accuse theists of - you know, brainwashing our kids.  So now they are evil and the evil is perpetuated.  Well, we have enough evil as it is.

3.  Perhaps, God should have just killed the parents, but not these innocent 2 month olds.  Now you have 2 month old bablies, without parents living in a primitive world.  What animal do you suppose would eat them - or perhaps the animals would have mercy on them as you proposed or perhaps they would simply starve to death. 

The Bible is clear that everyone, except Noah, was evil and if it would have perpetuated until now . . . WOW.  So, God blotted out man, and animals, and creeping things, and birds.

 

Let me be a little more clear.

We are never told BY THE BIBLE that God has mercy on animals.  Any more questions on this one.

 

Go back and read:  This comparison:

 There are men, who shoot rockets across the boarder at Israel and then run and hide in homes filled with women and children.  What is amazing is that you (according to your logic) would blame Israel when they respond to kill the men who shot at them, and women and children are killed.

is dealing with, "Who is responsible for the death of the 1st born in Egypt."

Again, you want to know why God didn't do things a different way.  The long answer to that question is just that . . . too long for a post.  The short answer is again . . . You want to know why he didn't do it your way.  If you go back and read the story - the answer is right there in Scripture.

Lastly, you did not answer even one question.  Especially the following. 

Was God or Pharaoh responsible for the deaths of the first born in Egypt?

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

REVLyle wrote:Was God or

REVLyle wrote:

Was God or Pharaoh responsible for the deaths of the first born in Egypt?

I thought you were going to ask a tough question.

If it happened and God exists, God was responsible.

1. God sent the plague.

2. God hardened Pharoah's heart to make sure that #1 happened.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture

REVLyle wrote: What you did

REVLyle wrote:

 

 

What you did was proof text in order to make it appear I said something else. 

 

No, I quoted your exact words and they were not at all taken out of context.  The hole paragrah in general stinks, but the first line is putrid.  I'm not going to quote entire paragraph's every time I have a thought about a particular phrase said making my posts 10 times longer than they need to be.  I keep my quotes in context.   

REVLyle wrote:

You did make things up.  From your first post:

 Is merciful drowning every man woman child and animal on the planet? - Please show me that in scripture.  The Bible never makes that claim. 

Oh man, I aupologize.  Every, all, most, many, the mojority, all but a few, who gives a damb.  Is their any real ethical difference between killing a million people, and 2 million, or 100,000,000.  No, the verdict is your a psycho regardless of the the talley.  So your argument is it wasn't "Every" person and animal, just most so therefore its all good and you align yourself with this logic, fantanstic.   

 

REVLyle wrote:

AND THEN LATER:

Your right God mercifully saved 1 average drunk and his family and 2 of every animal out of millions of people and billions of animals, man nice guy. - Please show me where the Bible describes Noah as you have and 2 of every animal.  The Bible does not describe Noah this way.  Did you know him?  Do you have another source that describes him as you have.  The Bible also tells us that it was 1 pair of every unclean animal and 7 pair of every clean animal.   

Ahhh... I see everythings clear now, their were 7 of every clean animal, it all makes sense to me now.  Yunno, before that I just really didn't understand the hole story.  Ofcourse I knew about the 7 something or other in the equasion I remember hearing it in church.  I don't find that going on and on about the rediculous particulars in the bible that are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand makes for a good argument  I mean this is really the garbage I'm talking about!  I say your god killed a shit load of people and animals except for a drunk, his family, and 2 of every animal and your response is "No he saved 2 of some, and 7 of others."  And?     

 

REVLyle wrote:

I will take your word for it that you read it, but you evidently do not remember it.

 I don't want to remember more of the bible, I want to remember less. 

 

REVLyle wrote:

I never said that every child wanted to kill and rape . . . it was an analogy in modern times.  A two month old is not cognitive of his or her thoughts.  So, I guess what you are proposing is that perhaps the grown ups were evil, but the babies were not - So God should just deal with the Parents.  Let's look at some options.

1.  Perhaps the parents were killing the babies.  If the parents were evil, were they taking care of the 2 month old or was the 2 month old being abused?  We know that Pharaoh was capable of killing infants.

2.  Perhaps they cared for their children and now as the 2 month of grows up - they are taught evil.  That is what you guys accuse theists of - you know, brainwashing our kids.  So now they are evil and the evil is perpetuated.  Well, we have enough evil as it is.

3.  Perhaps, God should have just killed the parents, but not these innocent 2 month olds.  Now you have 2 month old bablies, without parents living in a primitive world.  What animal do you suppose would eat them - or perhaps the animals would have mercy on them as you proposed or perhaps they would simply starve to death. 

The Bible is clear that everyone, except Noah, was evil and if it would have perpetuated until now . . . WOW.  So, God blotted out man, and animals, and creeping things, and birds.

 

  Wow, the verbal gymnastics you must perform to prove to yourself these crimes are ok are phenomonal.  I mean these are some great triple flips and pirouettes, your head must hurt all the time.  Let me be frank, their is absolutely no way of justifying the intentional killing of children for any reason.  More so when talking about your apparently all powerful god who could simply do anything he wanted.  The story is rediculous, your argument to justify it is worst.   

REVLyle wrote:

Lastly, you did not answer even one question.  Especially the following. 

Was God or Pharaoh responsible for the deaths of the first born in Egypt?

 

GOD!!!  If theirs a man holding my child hostage, I would point my gun at him, not his child.  And if I choose to shoot his child (which I would never do) then I am guilty.  I chose to take the shot on the innocent child, I am guilty.  This moral logic works even in the human world, not to mind if we make me god in the comparison.  If I was god, then the man, my child, and his child would be more like gerbils in a cage.  Lets say one gerbil is hurting the others,with my spureior morals and power I would easily just take the one gerbil out.  I can do whatever I want, their gerbils.  I would not negotiate with the gerbils by holding other gerbils ransom or something and then killing innocent ones to get the bad gerbil to behave.  I wouldn't drown a bunch of gerbils either just cuz they were bad, what a terible way to die, drowning.  We don't take agressive dogs and drown them, if they are truly a threat to others they get euthanized, no pain...wait are you now going to say god made their deaths not painful.  Please say that!!!  Your god sucks, he drowns people and burns people with fire from above, he's a jack ass that only exists in a book and in your mind.  I truly don't understand how your mind can twist the stories the way it has, it's quite fascinating yet disturbing.   

 

In response to NMCP and jcgadfly

You did take me out of context.  It is not wrong for anyone to say - I have more than some and less than others.  It is not wrong for me to state the obvious.  I have been afforded the chance to go to school and I have/had the mental capability to excel in the academic world.  It is not wrong to say, some have not had that opportunity and some do not have the mental capacity to go.  Would you argue with those statements?  My paragraph was written to say - I am content with what God has done for me.  I am thankful for what he has done.  I could complain and ask, "Why not more?" God has done what he has done for me, and I am simply grateful.  If you want to twist that - then go ahead, but all can read what I have written.

NMCP - you may think it is no big deal that you did not have your facts straight, but the same grace would not be shown to me if I quoted a source.  This would be especially true if I quoted an atheists speaker or book in order to prop up my belief.  You guys would not have let it slide for one moment.  You brought up the Bible stories and you made claims about them that were simply not true.  I know you do not believe in God, and therefore in the devil, but you know what "The devil really is in the details."  We will see that in a minute.

That is fine if you want to remember less, but again if you are going to quote it or reference it - get it right.

I assume that you must show up at every pro-life rally within a 100 mile radius from where you live.  Again, I simply used YOUR logic in killing the evil ones but sparing the children.  It simply does not work, in the case of the flood.  God chose to use a flood, and you think there was a better way.  Let's once again look at your flawed logic.

A:  There is NO God and there was no flood - then what are you so upset at????

B:  There is NO God, but there was this huge flood that simply killed everyone except Noah and some animals.  Somehow, there was one guy who knew this flood was going to occur and he built a big boat.  He didn't just build it for himself, but for his entire family and a bunch of animals, therefore he saved all the animals that he could and saved his family.  Pretty good guy I think, but of course you think he is just an average drunk.

C:  There is a God and there was no flood - again, what are you so upset at????

D:  There is a God and there was a flood.  You are so upset because God didn't do it your way.  According to scientist, this universe is approx 12 to 14 billion years old.  Let's say that is right.  God, existed before the universe in order to create it.  He created things that that we have even yet to discover.  He has intimate knowledge of all that is.  He, at the very least has been around 14 billion years.  But then there is this guy like you - who has been around, what 16 to 25 years and you know better than he does?  You're right - that makes complete sense.

Finally you answer a question and this is where I would like to include jcdadfly.

Both of you answered that God was responsible for killing the 1st born.  I wish I could make a buzzer sound on here, because both of you are wrong.  Let me help you out.

jcdadfly - you were quick to point out that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, but you failed to mention the three different passages in which scripture says that Pharaoh hardened his own heart.  Why did you fail to mention that?  Could it be that it didn't support your argument?

The correct answer is that BOTH of them (God and Pharaoh) are responsible.  What is clear throughout the entire Bible is that God is sovereign over all AND man is responsible for his own thoughts and actions. 

But you had so many other opportunities to place the blame on God.

Perhaps you could have sited Genesis 15:13 - I mean come on.  God told Abraham that his offspring were going to be afflicted for 400 years in a land that was not their own.  You know, the 400 years they were enslaved by Egypt.  This just isn't fair.  When God told Abraham this, Pharaoh was not even born.

What about Exodus 33:19 where God said "I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy."  So, doesn't that mean God could have, if he wanted to, been gracious or shown mercy on Pharaoh?

Perhaps you could have even gone all the way to the NT.  You could have said, what about Romans 9 where the Exodus 33 passage is repeated and then God said:  "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.  For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.  So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills."

So there you have it - God did all of that.  So you can complain all you want, but the next passage takes care of that.  Romans 9:19-21 - You will say to me then, "Why does he (God) still find fault (with man)?  For who can resist his will?"  But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?  Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"  Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? 

So if you are going to put all the blame on God - at least go to some really good passages to do that.  But again, you are telling 1/2 the story.  Everyone will answer to God for what he or she has done.  I do not have the right to turn to God and say - - - you made me like this.  You are responsible for accepting him or rejecting him.  That is clear throughout the NT.  So you can blame God for the flood and you can blame God for the death of the 1st born, but the evil men and Pharaoh share in the blame for their evil and hard hearts.  

NMCP - you can belittle me and God with your immature name calling all you want - but you will answer to God one day.  You certainly have the opportunity to see God's blessings in your life and give him glory OR you can reject this truth and believe that you are "the man."  I am not surprised by your hostility.  Scripture is clear that unbelievers will act this way.  Do you realize all of it is simply because I do not believe what you believe?  That is it.  You faith is in man, while mine is in God.  I hope that you will search the scriptures one day, and remember that God is good, full of grace and mercy.  He is long suffering with us.  Even with your rejection of him . . . he is patient with you.  God is so loving that he gave his son for you.  And yes, even though the Jews and Romans were responsible for killing Jesus . . . so was the Father.  That is also right there in scripture.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

are they really christians?

There is always the possibility that  people who act opposite of how they should as christians might not really be christian at all.  Putting a turd in the cookie jar does not make it a cookie. And we have all met people claming to be plumbers or electiricians, paid them big amounts yet they botch the job we hired them to do.  Yet we do not decry there is no electricity or throw out our toilet.  We find someone who can do the job right.

 

As a christian, I fall far short of what I should be. If I was on trial for being a christian, would there be enough evidence to convict me?  Probably not.   But I know there are christians who face death or imprisonment in communist countries for their beliefs yet they hold on to them and even dare to tell others about the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

I know that one of the main reasons that atheists decry christianity is that wars and killings in the name of God should not be, especially since God is claimed to be a god of love.  By that same reckoning, then shouldn't athiests be against communism, which even though one of its main tenants is there is no god, but communist regimes have  killed millions upon millions of innocent people in its 100 years on earth.  Just wondering.