Just a side note on hospitals: Only about 15% of hotpitals in the U.S. are religious and not one single U.S. hospital (religious or otherwise) has ever been founded without state funding. Yes, that's money from the secular government. There are very few hospitals that are truely "for-profit" (investor owned.)

I have to call foul on this claim. You appear to be claiming that an atheist has no reason to help others. WRONG! We are social creatures capable of empathy and as such we can empathize with others. Treating others kindly cultivates a society of peace and understanding.

I also call a foul on you for claiming that those who recieve charity cannot help society.

---

Additionally, I help others by choice not obligation. Your motives for charity seem rather suspect. Is the only reason you help others is because a all-powerful god commands it? I'm beginning to think so based on your statements about saying these people cannot help society.

(If you haven't found atheists in altruistic ventures it might be because you aren't looking hard enough. We may be doing it more to help out than to earn Brownie points for a god.)

-Triften

The reason he helps others is to help spread the power and influence of the Catholic Church -- although it's doubtful he realizes that.

"Charity" is vastly overrated. The Church teaches that it is good to give to others less fortunate and teaches us to feel good about doing it. But all it accomplishes 99% of the time is wastes the giver's time and money and imprisons the recipient in an ever-tightening spiral of dependence -- upon the Catholic Church.

You see, I'm not just saying that the Catholic Charity or whatever this particular organization is called is a scam to build power and influence for the church. I'm saying that the entire idea of charity is a scam to build power and influence for the church. Keep them ignorant, encourage them to breed more ignorance, and keep them dependent on handouts.

-- Kirbert

"Unlawful"? Are we using legal arguments all of a sudden?

Self-defense I totally agree with, legally, morally, any other way you wanna look at it. Warfare is much more questionable. In warfare that is self-defense, yes, but how about warfare to acquire land and/or resources? Or to evict people of the wrong faith from land that was "promised by God"?

If that were the case, would it not make more sense to simply assassinate the leaders of the country you're at war with? Can you explain why, here in the US, it is illegal to assassinate the leaders of another country, war or not?

Speak for yourself. If attacked, I will most certainly endeavor to kill my attacker, for at least three reasons: 1) Because if I don't, he'll show up in court with some sleazebag attorney claiming a completely different story, that I attacked him, he was just an innocent bystander. 2) Because if I don't, he may come back and attack me again, and I may not be ready next time; and 3) As long as I have the opportunity, I'd like to do society the favor of ridding it of this POS once and for all.

Oh, please. The entire reason there was conflict in Vietnam to begin with was because the French tried to convert the "natives" into Catholicism. When it looked like the French were going to lose control, the US Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, a practicing Catholic and receiving guidance from Pope Pius XII by way of Cardinal Spellman, insisted that the US provide aid and later military assistance. Still later, when the assistance clearly wasn't working, our president, one John F. Kennedy -- another Catholic and again receiving guidance from Cardinal Spellman -- greatly increased the US involvement primarily as a means to protect the 10% of the Vietnamese population that was Catholic, knowing that if they lost, the Catholics would be badly treated for being so weak-minded as to accept such an absurd belief system. Throughout the Vietnam war, the US backed one corrupt Catholic leader after another in South Vietnam, despite the fact that Vietnam (N and S) was only 10% Catholic and that it was well-known to all -- even the American soldiers in the trenches -- that none of these crooks would ever win an election there if one were held.

Of course, the war couldn't be sold to the American people as being an effort to protect Catholic savages, so it was sold as a necessary effort to protect the spread of Communism via "the domino effect" -- although everybody in a position of leadership in this country could readily see that was hogwash, the Vietnamese were an independent people and hated the Chinese (still do!) and would never fall in line with them on anything. Ho Chi Minh himself had come to Paris in the early 50's and asked the US for assistance in ridding his homeland of French domination, but the US declined because the French were our allies!

But even stopping the spread of Communism was largely sold as a religious objective, since the Communists had rejected religion as "the opiate of the masses".

So, please, don't try to convince me that Vietnam wasn't a religious war. You and your church might be able to convince the ignorant that you weren't involved, but I'm not ignorant on that point.

Largely true. He did all this with the blessing of the Vatican, too.

If Hitler's claims had been true, he might have been justified in his war. But it wasn't true that the Jews contributed nothing, and it wasn't true that they were stealing anything. This was another example of lies to cover up a religious war, a war to eradicate a religion other than one's own.

Maybe that's because you don't have any. But for those of us who think for ourselves, stand up for ourselves, and give ourselves credit for the things we accomplish rather than deflecting the credit to our invisible friend, pride is a very powerful motivator.

There's no need to temper pride.

And maybe Christian pride means being a "man of faith". Both are equally bad, and both illustrate the importance of shame in a civilized society. Whenever someone expresses an unacceptable opinion or does an unacceptable act, he should be publicly denounced for it. It should be made very clear that nobody admires him for such thoughts or actions, but rather is repulsed by it. In Japan, this applies to his family to a lesser extent, as they are held responsible for letting their relative get this far off track.

Here in the US, we don't use shame at all. Everybody is encouraged to be proud of who they are, even if they are misfits and losers -- or theists. Sooner or later, that's got to change.

Yes, you might take it upon yourself to force your ideas on others.

Actually, yes, you do. Honorable people usually do quite well in our society, while dishonorable people generally do less well. It would be better if we could provide even more distinction there, make the rewards for being honorable greater and the results of being unethical even more punishing, but we are constantly being thwarted in such efforts by politicians and Christians.

The aling and whoring sound like fun! The bludgeoning will only land you in jail or a grave, though.

That is correct.

That would be one society's gain and another's loss. To civilization as a whole, it could be either good or bad or neutral, depending on whether the world would be better off without the nextdoor people.

He might wanna move!

I'm not entirely clear on why those two tribes hate each other so much, but it's entirely possible they are both justified. And it's entirely possible that, when two tribes hate each other that much for whatever reason, the best thing the rest of civilization can do is let them duke it out.

Hey, or we could do what the US usually does: side with the weaker side in the conflict -- whoever it is, regardless of any ethics or morals whatsoever -- and provide just enough military assistance to make it a fair fight! That way the conflict goes on forever and a maximum number of people on both sides get killed. While we sit at home and our military industries collect the profits, and perhaps we let a few individuals stupid enough to volunteer go over there and get themselves killed. Yeah, that's the morally righteous thing to do!

Never said it was.

There would certainly be a lot fewer reasons to run a charitable organization without faith. Which would be a good thing. I suspect that, if all the religious claptrap in the world today were to suddenly dry up and disappear, there would still be some charitable organizations -- but nowhere near as many. Presently there are few or no atheist charitable organizations because there is zero need for one.

Everybody has the means to help themselves, with the possible exceptions of the mentally or physically disabled. And those are the only people that would likely be served by atheist charity if no one else stepped up.

Incorrect. We can't agree on your moral premises, because they are based on superstitious nonsense. But ethical premises we can agree on, and would easily if we could get the superstitious blathering out of the way.

Largely true. Remember that basis for ethics? "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"? That means that, for civilization to succeed and prosper, infrastructure must be established that rewards behavior that helps society and punishes behavior that is harmful to society. Hence, individuals will do good things out of self-interest -- and there's nothing vague about it. And since it is in everybody's self-interest for their society to succeed and prosper, they will support the establishment of such infrastructure.

Expecting individuals to do good things for altruistic reasons is what socialism is all about. We saw it fail in the Soviet Union. The most successful socialist societies are the ones that learn how to adopt capitalism to some extent to encourage people to work for their own self-interest.

IOW, self-interest works. Up to now, nothing else has ever worked nearly as well, and it's not clear anything else ever will.

I'm not presuming it; I know it for a fact, I've watched it happen with my own eyes.

Nearly every. Quote properly, please.

Most charities take such great pride in giving money and resources to the "needy" that they don't even pay any attention to whether or not they're actually helping those needy improve their station in life. People who should be working to change their situation instead are encouraged to keep doing what they've been doing and continue to accept support from the charity. In many cases, they make a living out of it. In fact, in many cases they deliberately choose the lifestyle!

They might exist without religious affiliation, but they don't exist without religious influence. It's religion that teaches giving without qualification rather than encouraging success, and a great many people in our society today -- including those who don't consider themselves Christians -- have bought into this idea.

I have nothing against charities that truly do help people help themselves. But they are rare. There are some individuals who accept charity and manage to use it to help improve their own station in life, but -- ooooh, you're not gonna like reading this -- that's because they have too much pride to go on accepting charity indefinitely.

Not what I said, and you know it.

Gee, read a book on psychology or watch Dr. Phil or something!

They don't? Where do they get the food they eat?

My dad and I had a good laugh over that one once. Basically properties such as church buildings are owned by the church rather than the individuals who provided the money and labor to build them, resulting in ever-increasing property holdings by the church and poverty for their followers. Great work if you can get it! And they have the gall and audacity to call us atheists immoral!

-- Kirbert

These messages are getting too long. I'll see if I can break this reply up into several pieces to make things more manageable.

OK, if you say so.

Whether or not that is the stated objective, I dunno. What I do know is that charities in general don't achieve that objective in any but a tiny percentage of cases, and for the most part don't appear to care that they rarely achieve that objective. They generally don't have any sort of feedback system to verify whether or not the people they have provided charity to have actually turned their lives around and become productive citizens, and they generally don't have any mechanism by which they can review and alter their policies in order to have a better outcome on more of their recipients. For the most part, the battle cry is "Give till it hurts!" followed by "Give more!"

An excellent example of enabling. Everybody should prepare for their own retirement; this is simple responsibility. But when charities are caring for those who didn't -- and continue providing for those who didn't -- the result is that those of us who did prepare for our own retirements start to look like fools. And a couple of generations down the pike, nobody is preparing for their own retirement. And retirees are fully dependent upon charities -- and the church -- for their support. Once again, the entire purpose of the charity has been achieved: to funnel more money and influence through the church.

Gee, I think I just did!

Uhhhh, no, you can't.

I attended a Catholic school myself. And I suppose I wasn't supposed to notice the hour per day of Bible study?

Just what do you think Bible study is?

Ah, a good place to stop and move on to another message.

-- Kirbert

I understand you have a problem with reality that conflicts with things you've been told by people you choose to trust. You might want to check a history book on that one, though.

True. But that doesn't alter the fact that he was counselled by Cardinal Spellman to help those poor helpless Catholics in Vietnam, and that he acted on that advice.

We are getting back to the question of when warfare is justified. In the case of Vietnam, we spent many years and many thousands of American lives fighting against the people trying to free their country from religious oppression. Was that justified?

Interesting. As far as backing one corrupt Catholic leader after another, you can look it up. As far as the American soldiers knowing that they wouldn't have won a popular election, I suggest you ask a soldier who was there.

Back in the states, nobody knew there were any Bhuddists in Vietnam until some monks started setting fire to themselves in Saigon streets. The first reaction of the American public was "I didn't know there were any Bhuddists there! Oh, well, who cares about a few crazy monks setting themselves on fire?" When it was finally reported that Vietnam was 90% Bhuddist, there was general dismay that we were not told sooner.

Wow, that indoctrination runs deep. You might want to know that, just within the past few years, your pope publicly apologized for their part in the destruction of the Jews during WWII. I guess that wasn't reported in the pulpit.

Gee, does that mean I need to read the Bible? Because I have been reading real history.

I suppose genocide is never called for; converting to Christianity is vastly preferable.

Another good place for a switch to another message.

-- Kirbert

Did I say that would be a bad thing? Gee, I don't recall saying that.

Just the same, I wouldn't support such a policy. For one thing, I don't consider Americans much better than Arabs. They both cling to an outmoded belief in superstition. The best thing you can say about the Americans is that they generally don't take their religious nonsense as seriously.

I would hope that both can be enlightened. Once their religions are recognized for the nonsense than they are, Americans and Arabs alike could live together in peace. It is the only bone of contention between them.

As far as letting differing groups duke it out, I think history will show that it's almost always a mistake to interfere.

Good point! Most shamefully, somehow they even convinced the US Gov't to let them slide by without paying any taxes!

Yes. Read my lips: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

No, it's not. Countenancing genocide where it is not justified would be a very bad thing. I personally am all in favor of genocide against mosquitoes; mankind should unite to wipe them off the planet.

I'd be willing to listen to arguments for genocide against the Taliban, too. As far as I can tell, this group of people is a scourge upon mankind, and I'm not convinced that they are redeemable.

Actually, you haven't been showing me much of anything. You keep saying you don't see how my views can suffice to create a cogent moral framework, but you haven't presented much in the way of argument to support that contention. Meanwhile, I know for a fact my views can create a cogent moral framework because I'm living it.

You have clearly confused two different points I was making. People will support the institution of policies that enable their society to succeed and prosper, for purely selfish reasons. They will not labor to benefit others with no benefit to themselves. There's a difference. Socialism doesn't work, capitalism works, but neither involves allowing unethical behavior to flourish.

There are several hundred instances in my city alone.

True enough. But when the abuses are rampant and the charity does nothing to stem the abuse other than to solicit good citizens for more contributions, then, yes, the charity is evil. In most cases I have observed, charities do far more harm to society than good. That would be a good definition of evil, IMHO.

And how many donations would they get if they weren't doing this charity work?

The perfect solution to the need of the poor would be to build factories for them to get jobs. I don't see how having no material possessions helps the poor in any way.

That's an oxymoron.

-- Kirbert

would you help a mentally or physically disabled person if they did not have a means to help themselves?  for example, in your ideal world, would you expect to be prosecuted for running over a physically/mentally disabled person if they weren't really doing that much for society? would a justice system in that world be based on how much a particular victim has contributed to society?

To St. Michael I have a similar question: what exactly about an individual's human life and free will is worth preserving in the first place? isn't life just a bit of a waste of time, a distraction, if all souls will be returning to where they came from, minus the unfortunate ones who are going to hell?

what's the point of this intermediary on planet earth if we all know the conclusion? People in the world whom have been judged by society to be in the wrong have actually used this kind reasoning to kill their own children, even to have abortions. they see the intermediary as being irrelevant, if not painful. they think they are making the moral decision by cutting out the intermediary. how do you explain to them that life itself is important and they're wrong for sending their children straight to heaven? 

Yes, although in many cases there are still people who need to be held accountable. For example, parents who insist on getting drunk or taking cocaine while pregnant. But the disabled person himself -- presuming he's not disabled as a result of his own actions -- shouldn't be held accountable for it.

That is an interesting question. Offhand, I would answer "Certainly!" because the obvious presumption is that you don't know whether or not he was doing anything for society, and if you did, it's still not your decision to make. However, I'm wondering if you were presuming that, somehow, while driving my car, I did know all about this guy and his contributions to society and decided to deliberately mow him down.

To take this line of questioning to its eventual extreme: Would I have prosecuted Jack Kevorkian? No, I would not, and I consider it a shameful reflection on our society that this compassionate man spent many years in an American jail.

Actually, the issue would be how much they will contribute to society, not how much they already have. And yes, it would be a factor, but only in civil lawsuits -- which I think uses a similar scheme today, although to estimate the value of an individual to his family and dependents rather than to society as a whole.

Remember, we're talking about death, here, and everybody dies. Just because you don't get murdered doesn't mean you're going to live forever. When you're talking about the harms associated with murder, there are two: the fact that you have wasted resources belonging to society, and the fact that you have caused a conscious, self-aware person to die at a time other than he would have wished if you had asked him.

Hence, I would not have prosecuted Jack Kevorkian. Hedid ask his victims and they were OK with it. And they were all certainly well beyond any hope of contributing to society. No harm, no foul.

-- Kirbert

Didn't stop anybody from bringing a bunch of them up on war crimes, though! 

The current situation comes to mind.  Normally, POW's are sent home after the cessation of hostilities.  What will ever become of the terrorists at Gitmo?  Can anyone imagine them ever being set free?

Far enough off topic yet? 

--  Kirbert 

--  Kirbert 

I agree. I'd also like to add that it's not always a religious issue. there are atheists who are against abortion-go to http://www.godlessprolifers.org  what I like about them is they support things like sex education and preventative means of cutting down abortion

Hmm, I mostly agree with you, but it sounds like you think the decision about whether or not the baby should be born or aborted belongs entirely to the mother.  If that's the case, then I'm curious as to what your opinion would be on government mandated child support payments from the father.

I think that, in a relationship, ideally both parties would be involved in the decision. In any other case, though, the man helped create the kid and the day that men get pregnant and give birth is the day they can decide whether or not to get an abortion. He's just as responsible for the result either way.

I would agree that the man if he made clear he didn't want kids should be able to either demand an abortion or be absolved from supporting the kids if she refuses.

To me that's EXACTLY the same logic as saying if a woman doesn' want a baby she shouldn't have sex.

It is definitely best if they agree - either both want or both don't want kids - if they both don't then one should if possible get a vasectomy/tubal ligation (though some asshat doctors won't tie a woman's tubes if she doesn't have kids / before she's a certain age.) The problem is when certain sick women say they don't and lie about being on the pill/having their tubes tied to "trap" a guy into getting her pregnant - either thinking that will get him to marry her or if not she can at least get support for the next 18-22 years. In that scenario she shouldn't get shit (and maybe should go to jail even.) Personally I would love to see something like out of "Brave New World" where reproduction is no longer tied to sex. This is a situation where a couple is a bad match - when one wants kids and the other doesn't.

Even worse is when the kid isn't his. There was a case here in Pennsylvania where the mn found out later his wife was cheating on him at the time and could PROVE via DNA that the kid wasn't his - he still had to pay child support. That is unbelievably fucked up. Not only should the child support have stopped, she should of had to pay him back every cent he payed. Of course the legal system in this country is unbelievably fucked up in almost every possible way.

If abortion is an option then I see a pregnancy and a birth as 2 different events because one doesn't necessarily result from the other.  If both the man and the woman are involved in making the decision that leads to the woman getting pregnant, then it's not fair to say that they're not both responsible for the pregnancy.  In the case where only 1 person was involved in making the decision (e.g. rape, and arguably when a woman chooses to use sperm donated to a sperm bank, as the woman chooses which sperm donation gets used, but the donor doesn't get to choose which woman uses it), it's not fair to hold the other party responsible for the pregnancy.  The same holds true for childbirth.  If only one party is involved in the decision, that party should bear the full responsibility for the result... if both are equally involved in the decision, then the responsibility should be equal.

Why should the guy suffer? I disagree with puting the interests of the child ahead of anyone else's interests. Let her get a damn job or track down the guy she actually got pregnant from. Why not just pick people at random to have to support a baby of a single mother? That would be equally (un)fair. I do get tired of the sense of entitlement to have kids and have others pay for them that some people have. I even heard some decide to get pregnant to get more welfare ("I'm getting a raise! I'm pregnant again!" So instead of getting a job if they want more money they just spread their legs and fart out another kid???? This is why I think welfare should not go up for having more kids - they should get a pregnancy test when they start collecting - if they are they can get it for the kid(s) she's pregnant with, they get it for themselve and kids they already have, and that's it. Maybe give them a little more if they agree to free sterilization.

Abortion is a good act as it reduces the number of unwanted kids who will grow up to mug me and helps to reduce the number of unsupported kids who my taxes will have to cover.

Think thats a harsh basis for morality its probably the only 'natural' one. Now being selfish strangely doesnt mean its you have no interest in the welfare of others its just that you have calculated conscious or unconsciously that their welfare is in your best interest.

Society in all advanced countries has come to the conclusion that have a large number of people at the bottom (regardless of how they got there) who are extremely pissed off , hungry homeless and generally desperate is not beneficial to those who are better off.  Sure some can better themselves others tend to mug/knife me.

Anyway to put it in a way that christians might understand  no abortion = more crime and/or  higher taxes.

At least some of the slightly more intelligent catholics in the UK are now paying women not to have abortions someone how I doubt American christians are even that bright.

It may be of some interest  to some (or not) that under British Law

ALL abortions are considered to be self-defence!

The 1967 abortion states that abortion is only permitted when there  a grave risk of physical or mental injury to the woman. Its the mental injury bit that has permitted what is effectively abortion on demand.

Only pretty rare occassions when it is refused.

I believe the one example of when it can be refused is if a woman lets it known to a doctor than she wants more kids but having one in August would effect her prepaid for holiday .

Why should the woman have to suffer? Do we really want women having abortions SOLELY because they are afraid that the man will contest and she will get nothing? Your scenario could be reversed and a man could agree to have the child and then change his mind when it's too late and claim that he never wanted the baby and clear himself of any responsibility. It's a tough situation but the fact of the matter is that if a woman doesn't want children, she will do what she has to do. If a man doesn't want children, he should do what he has to do to ensure that it never happens. In any other case, as I said before, the day that men get pregnant and give birth is the day that they can decide. If you don't like it, meet Rosey Palm and her five sisters.

Hey Matt--have you ever had a newborn baby and been told to get off your ass and get a job? I don't think so. Furthermore, the welfare system has been reformed and women don't get increases for each child anymore and they are forced to work sometimes at the detriment of the children. This is going to increase the problems already prevalent in the urban society that you are so afraid of by creating a generation of juvenile delinquents. This attitude disgusts me. And you pretend to be a socialist. Pshaw.

To emphasize because of what Kelly said:

I am 100% totally against letting the man decide to KEEP the baby when the woman doesn't want to. If he wants kids he should find a woman who does too. I just said if she does want it and he doesn't he should have the right to say he isn't paying. And all abortions and sterilizations should be 100% paid by the government. Also, if they both want the kid he definitely shouldn't be able to change his mind later and not pay child support.

I say if they both don't want the kid, obviously get rid of it. If the woman doesn't and the man does, too bad for him, get rid of it. If they both want it obviously have it. If she does and he doesn't it is insanity to make him pay. Get rid of the kid or pay for it herself - or find a Christian group or whatever to pay. If she wants to make the man pay than she has no business saying she should be able tomabort if the man wants. I am for equal rights but I'm against one gender claiming rights but expecting the other to cover her. I definitely think the guy should if he doesn't want kids say he is no longer responsible - why should only the woman have the right to abort? Yes, she has to pay if she wants the kid, but not if she doesn't. If she wants it pay for it. If she can't or wont, she should either abort or find someone willing to pay. The idea of forcing a man to pay just because he had sex with her to me is just as disgusting as forcing a woman to carry to term just because she did. If you can't afford to raise a kid abort or find someone to WILLINGLY support you.

Again - you don't get it both ways - that isn't fair. Either you have the right to abortion or the man can decide he doesn't want a kid and doesn't have to bay. Reverse discrimination is just as bad as regular.

By the way in my own situation it's not just that I don't want to ever have to deal with a baby or spend all that money that I don't ever want to reproduce - I also don't want to force a kid to go through the physical and mental pain I've gone through my entire life. I would consider passing on my genes (despite the IQ in the 140's) to be very unethical. I would end my life right now if I could guarantee it would happen painlessly. I would do anything to keep a kid from being born going thorugh everything I did. I would have been better off aborted.