Calilasseia wrote:A point I made earlier in the thread here ...

I already addressed the same reasoning as yours, shared by others here, quite a few posts back. We'll move on now.

If someone makes a point and I've addressed it, I usually don't re-address each poster with the same point. If you all want me to, I suppose I can restate myself but that would result in more of the same insults from the previous so...



thank you.

carl wrote:All of this charity credit-claiming amongst us goes to show, IMHO, it is general human nature, regardless of our stand on the existence of God, to understand that charity/helping others is desirable and not helping is undesirable.

The question is, why do we have this understanding?

From my personal point of view, it has to do with the condition of our God-given conscience - whether it is operating well or is seared and therefore, impaired.

If the urge to do good was given by the mythical god, why the need for people to be told not to make a big thing out of their giving, which the Bible seems to exhort people to avoid, but which many supposed believers evidently take delight in ignoring?
If helping people is divinely innate, why not make modesty innate as opposed to blatant self-promotion?

Clearly, seeing religions as competing human-created sociopolitical entities seems to give a pretty obvious explanation of various religious brands seeming to be egocentric in their self-advertising - for them to survive at the expense of other brands, they benefit from indulging in frankly distasteful marketing of just how how caring they are.

Why would a One True God either need or desire so many brands and sub-brands of religion driven at essence by so many competing human egos, or by so many people disagreeing about What God Wants while all claiming to be in some kind of special communion with the divine?
An even vaguely competent junior deity which actually could communicate with humans would have told 99% of the supposed spokespeople (let's be honest, essentially spokesmen) claiming to speak for it to Shut The Fuck Up generations or centuries ago.

Instead, successions of snake-oil salesmen make gods in their own image justifiably confident that there will be no meaningful contradiction, because they know perfectly well there is nothing out there to fear contradiction from.

carl wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:A point I made earlier in the thread here ...

I already addressed the same reasoning as yours, shared by others here, quite a few posts back. We'll move on now.

You're going have to point that out carl, I haven't seen you address anyone's reasoning anywhere, just the usual assertions.

If someone makes a point and I've addressed it, I usually don't re-address each poster with the same point. If you all want me to, I suppose I can restate myself but that would result in more of the same insults from the previous so...

Aww! Did someone call you names carl? Point the relevant posts out and I'll happily report them myself.

carl wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:A point I made earlier in the thread here ...

I already addressed the same reasoning as yours, shared by others here, quite a few posts back.

You completely failed to refute the point however.

carl wrote: We'll move on now.

No we won't carl. You do not get to dismiss entire arguments out of hand because you cannot refute them.

carl wrote:If someone makes a point and I've addressed it, I usually don't re-address each poster with the same point. If you all want me to, I suppose I can restate myself but that would result in more of the same insults from the previous so...

Adressing a point =/= refuting the point being made carl.
If you refuse to defend your own positions or to refute/acknowledge those made by others, you're not being honest or rational.

BlackBart wrote:

carl wrote:
If someone makes a point and I've addressed it, I usually don't re-address each poster with the same point. If you all want me to, I suppose I can restate myself but that would result in more of the same insults from the previous so...

Aww! Did someone call you names carl? Point the relevant posts out and I'll happily report them myself.

If you really think you're being insulted point the posts where this happens and we'll report them for you.
But don't try to appeal to the martyr card when it doesn't happen.

carl wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:A point I made earlier in the thread here ...

I already addressed the same reasoning as yours, shared by others here, quite a few posts back. We'll move on now.

When did you do this?

carl wrote:If someone makes a point and I've addressed it, I usually don't re-address each poster with the same point. If you all want me to, I suppose I can restate myself but that would result in more of the same insults from the previous so...

thank you.

If your idea of addressing an issue, is to regurgitate already destroyed canards, pretend that those canards equal fact, and ignore the ever growing evidence exposing those canards as such, then you really need to go away and learn what the word "address" means.

carl wrote:

Nebogipfel wrote:It only seems to be religionists with an axe to grind who think there need to be any.

So when Christian charities feed starving children, its because Christians have an "axe to grind" but when atheists put up expensive billboards promoting atheist ideology, with the purpose of proselytizing for atheism, what is that called?

A tiny offer of a differing view from the thousands upon thousands of Christian billboards (primarily unwittingly paid for by tithers etc.)?

carl wrote:

ADParker wrote:There are plenty of secular charities...

Why bring up secular charities when the previous question was about atheist charities? It is because there is no such thing as an atheist charity? Not even one? I assume someone can name one but since we've been waiting for a while, maybe not. Anyway, this is off-topic so we will end on this (good thing this thread isn't about atheist charities because that subject would be a non-starter).

Secular charities are not atheist charities anymore than secular music is atheist music.

Secular charities are made of theists, atheists, and just about everyone else so with such a mix, it makes no sense for the charity to identify with any one group.

Anyway, back to the topic. thanks.

Did you not reads the rest of that post?

Because you are trying to pretend that atheists are less charitable because atheist organizations haven't started as many charities. Which is as daft as claiming that bald people are less charitable because no baldness organizations/groups have set up charitable organizations in their name.

This is no doubt because you are holding onto the daft idea that atheism is a religion just like Christianity is.

carl wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Yeah. Unless a secular charity is also atheist, no, it's not an atheist charity.

Is a secular charity theistic?

No. Secular holds neither theistic nor atheistic values or identity.

"Atheistic values" makes no sense. You are conflating atheism with the belief that there are no gods (probably with "there is no God" because Christians are often blinkered like that.)

carl wrote:But to those atheists desperate to be identified with a charity, they will claim a secular charity is, by default, an atheist charity. LOL !

In a sense charities can not be said to be theistic or atheistic as charities aren't people (this is so reminiscent of that nonsense of identifying businesses as people, and thus affording them certain rights ). But in another one could say that any charity that is not theistic by definition (set up and claimed to be so; e.g "The Christian blah blah charity") would be by definition atheistic. Which means and ONLY means "Not theistic", it does NOT mean "anti-theistic" or espousing that gods do not exist as a part of their message.

carl wrote:For those atheists who make such a ridiculous claim, apparently it matters quite a bit to them to be associated with charitable works. But why?

You just aren't getting it.
You are the one playing the silly numbers games here. Which is why you are so adamant on avoiding comparing theistic charities with non-theistic ones, instead insisting on only comparing them to specifically "atheist" labeled ones. Even that is rather pointless as the numbers of organizations says nothing about the beliefs (or lack thereof) of those being charitable through them.

tolman wrote:Why would a One True God either need or desire so many brands and sub-brands of religion driven at essence by so many competing human egos, or by so many people disagreeing about What God Wants while all claiming to be in some kind of special communion with the divine?

Some 'brands' are ego-driven no doubt, but to ask why God needs them or desires them? Who is even claiming that He does? This is why the Bible say: 1 Corinthians 1:10-12: "Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you."

Regarding different brands of religion, they do not hold the same beliefs, therefore, it is not God who desires some to be true and some to be false but it is the doings of mankind so is it surprising that such a situation exists? For the seeker, this calls for understanding and discernment of those differences.

Regarding sub-brands of religion, in Christianity the differences are mostly due to the history/origins of the different branches and maybe some emphasis on this or that, but the core beliefs remain the same.

In conclusion, the presence of different brands and sub-brands of religions say nothing in regards to the existence or nonexistence of God, IMHO.

ADParker wrote:

carl wrote:

Nebogipfel wrote:It only seems to be religionists with an axe to grind who think there need to be any.

So when Christian charities feed starving children, its because Christians have an "axe to grind" but when atheists put up expensive billboards promoting atheist ideology, with the purpose of proselytizing for atheism, what is that called?

A tiny offer of a differing view from the thousands upon thousands of Christian billboards (primarily unwittingly paid for by tithers etc.)?

IMHO, if I see evidence of resources going toward Christian billboards but almost none toward feeding the poor, I would object. This is not the case with Christian organizations which support massive feeding efforts in third-world nations. With atheist organizations, however, we see the opposite: primarily billboards, lawsuits, and conventions but very little help toward third world nations.

carl wrote:
IMHO, if I see evidence of resources going toward Christian billboards but almost none toward feeding the poor, I would object. This is not the case with Christian organizations which support massive feeding efforts in third-world nations. With atheist organizations, however, we see the opposite: primarily billboards, lawsuits, and conventions but very little help toward third world nations.

carl, why should athiest organizations need to make for humanitarian aid, when there are perfectly good secular organisations like Amnesty International, Red Cross, Doctors WIthout Borders, etc, who are dedicated to giving humanitarian aid anyway, and have the added bonus of not pushing a religion along with the aid that they give?

How many times will this point have to be made before you acknowledge it?

carl wrote:Regarding sub-brands of religion, in Christianity the differences are mostly due to the history/origins of the different branches and maybe some emphasis on this or that, but the core beliefs remain the same.

There are around 41,000 different varieties of christianity alone, never mind all the other religions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ch ... ominations

As there are reported to be approximately 41,000 Christian denominations...

Most genocides in history have been inter-faith (...both inter-religions and inter-denominational).



Atheists are associated with genocides; theists have been massacring them for centuries!

carl wrote:
Regarding different brands of religion, they do not hold the same beliefs, therefore, it is not God who desires some to be true and some to be false but it is the doings of mankind so is it surprising that such a situation exists?

Yes. Human organizations manage to come up with systems for ensuring that important information does not get lost in transmission, so it seems strange that the supreme creator of the universe cannot or will not do this, particularly when this information is supposedly crucial to our well-being.

For the seeker, this calls for understanding and discernment of those differences.

Quite. One can apply rational skepticism, and discern that they are all manmade cultural artifact, rather than messages from God, a god, or some gods.

Regarding sub-brands of religion, in Christianity the differences are mostly due to the history/origins of the different branches and maybe some emphasis on this or that, but the core beliefs remain the same.

So what was all that Reformation-Counter Reformation shenannigins all about then?

In conclusion, the presence of different brands and sub-brands of religions say nothing in regards to the existence or nonexistence of God, IMHO.

I think your "O" is mistaken.

Nebogipfel wrote:carl, why should athiest organizations need to make for humanitarian aid, when there are perfectly good secular organisations like Amnesty International, Red Cross, Doctors WIthout Borders, etc, who are dedicated to giving humanitarian aid anyway, and have the added bonus of not pushing a religion along with the aid that they give?

How many times will this point have to be made before you acknowledge it?

Ooh! Ooh! I know the answer to this one!!

carl wrote:

ADParker wrote:

carl wrote:

Nebogipfel wrote:It only seems to be religionists with an axe to grind who think there need to be any.

So when Christian charities feed starving children, its because Christians have an "axe to grind" but when atheists put up expensive billboards promoting atheist ideology, with the purpose of proselytizing for atheism, what is that called?

A tiny offer of a differing view from the thousands upon thousands of Christian billboards (primarily unwittingly paid for by tithers etc.)?

IMHO, if I see evidence of resources going toward Christian billboards but almost none toward feeding the poor, I would object. This is not the case with Christian organizations which support massive feeding efforts in third-world nations. With atheist organizations, however, we see the opposite: primarily billboards, lawsuits, and conventions but very little help toward third world nations.

I don't know why you bother to respond to individual posts at all. You might as well just periodically submit the same stupid arsed crappy post. It's pretty clear that nothing being said is sinking in.

carl wrote:Regarding sub-brands of religion, in Christianity the differences are mostly due to the history/origins of the different branches and maybe some emphasis on this or that, but the core beliefs remain the same.

If their core beliefs are the same why cant they walk through the same door together?

carl wrote:

tolman wrote:Why would a One True God either need or desire so many brands and sub-brands of religion driven at essence by so many competing human egos, or by so many people disagreeing about What God Wants while all claiming to be in some kind of special communion with the divine?

Some 'brands' are ego-driven no doubt, but to ask why God needs them or desires them? Who is even claiming that He does?

Reality.
There are many different conflicting religions.
So either your god wants it that way, or he's extremely incompetent in communicating his message.

carl wrote:This is why the Bible say: 1 Corinthians 1:10-12: "Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you."

So you admit your God is an incompetent tosser?

carl wrote:Regarding different brands of religion, they do not hold the same beliefs, therefore, it is not God who desires some to be true and some to be false but it is the doings of mankind so is it surprising that such a situation exists? For the seeker, this calls for understanding and discernment of those differences.

Again, if your God so desires the unity of religion and mankind, why does he fail so spectacularly at communicating this?

carl wrote:Regarding sub-brands of religion, in Christianity the differences are mostly due to the history/origins of the different branches and maybe some emphasis on this or that, but the core beliefs remain the same.

Yep, that's why there's never been a schism and Protestants and Catholics get along so well in Ireland and other places.

carl wrote:In conclusion, the presence of different brands and sub-brands of religions say nothing in regards to the existence or nonexistence of God, IMHO.

It does say something about the competence of a God who's claimed to desire unity in mankind.

Nebogipfel wrote:

carl wrote:
IMHO, if I see evidence of resources going toward Christian billboards but almost none toward feeding the poor, I would object. This is not the case with Christian organizations which support massive feeding efforts in third-world nations. With atheist organizations, however, we see the opposite: primarily billboards, lawsuits, and conventions but very little help toward third world nations.

carl, why should athiest organizations need to make for humanitarian aid, when there are perfectly good secular organisations like Amnesty International, Red Cross, Doctors WIthout Borders, etc, who are dedicated to giving humanitarian aid anyway, and have the added bonus of not pushing a religion along with the aid that they give?

How many times will this point have to be made before you acknowledge it?

My guess is until either one of you is dead. carl isn't here to discover the facts or have a rational discussion.

carl wrote:

ADParker wrote:

carl wrote:

Nebogipfel wrote:It only seems to be religionists with an axe to grind who think there need to be any.

So when Christian charities feed starving children, its because Christians have an "axe to grind" but when atheists put up expensive billboards promoting atheist ideology, with the purpose of proselytizing for atheism, what is that called?

A tiny offer of a differing view from the thousands upon thousands of Christian billboards (primarily unwittingly paid for by tithers etc.)?

IMHO, if I see evidence of resources going toward Christian billboards but almost none toward feeding the poor, I would object. This is not the case with Christian organizations which support massive feeding efforts in third-world nations. With atheist organizations, however, we see the opposite: primarily billboards, lawsuits, and conventions but very little help toward third world nations.

Stop lying your arse of carl.