Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry. I'm still not sure what we're going on about here, and/or what definition of "might" we're referring to. Let alone the point. Doesn't seem to be what I was referring to in the beginning anyway.
I apologize for causing confusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
I think taxes is charity. Its forced charity. Maybe reasonable amount isn, like public schools, health, army. But the way we are running it today, basically carrying a system of thought that can't support itself, it becomes charity and not aid.
Sinking the life raft isn't moral more often than it is. to me.
Taxes are reasonable when everyone can benefit including "rich" people. But when only a segment of the population has access to it, then taxes become questionable. I won't go as far as calling it immoral because people have clearly benefited from it, and I know what it is like to have no family to support you.
Taxes are reasonable when everyone can benefit including "rich" people. But when only a segment of the population has access to it, then taxes become questionable. I won't go as far as calling it immoral because people have clearly benefited from it, and I know what it is like to have no family to support you.
definitely true ... dirt poor and rich shouldn't even be voting. IMO of course. If the rich would just share (pay close to what I pay in terms of percentages) a little bit they could carry us all.
I know you'd like to pretend it's a contradiction...but it isn't.
Atheism has no doctrine or edicts to base or motivate a charitable attitude upon like many Theological precepts do.
But like any other position a person or group may take...it is still a persuasion that may compel a negative feeling toward those that do not think likewise...and in that way it can breed contempt that has been known to cause great harm. NonTheist aggression toward Theists (for being Theist)...equals, if not surpasses aggression going the other way...especially in modern times.
The CCP, right this minute, has over a million Uyghurs (because they hold the Religious Beliefs they do) held prisoner in concentration camps. How many Atheists are being held by the Religious, because they don't believe?
Sometimes you seem to get closer to right rather than wrong, but not often...
True that atheism "has no doctrine or edicts" period. The issue is simply one having to do with the truth of these matters whether they suit us or not. Motivate us or not. In the same way, the truth "has no doctrine or edicts" either.
Again, however, you have a decidedly selective and one-sided way of looking at things. Just because religion can motivate people to do positive things does not mean it can't motivate people to do negative things. Why do you only see the breeding of contempt and/or great harm when it comes to "nontheist aggression toward theists?" What about the other way around? What about aggression between different religions?
Al-Qaeda was known to lure converts by helping people in need, with food and medicine. Viewed as quite "charitable" by those who would benefit from the charity. So what? Is it about how charity works as a recruiting tactic or inducement? If so and/or regardless, no doubt religion has been about helping the poor going back to the beginning. Among other things. That's not what atheism is about, because to be an atheist is simply to have no good reason to believe a god exists. Lack of evidence or proof in this regard has nothing to do with any other agenda or want to win brownie points for anything other than to separate truth from fiction.
My volunteer efforts to help those in need over the years has NOTHING to do with the fact I am an atheist. Perhaps others need some motivation or direction in that respect too, but is that necessarily a good thing or a better thing?
It's some pretty twisted logic to somehow equate the right or wrong about atheism with the CCP, but such is the sort of logic that you are forever twisting to absolute FUBAR. Why do you never tell tales like the one about who imprisoned Galileo? And why? What of the many theocratic governments very much alive and well today and the people they are putting in prison or killing because of religious beliefs? Why never anything about that sort of thing?
Taxes are reasonable when everyone can benefit including "rich" people. But when only a segment of the population has access to it, then taxes become questionable. I won't go as far as calling it immoral because people have clearly benefited from it, and I know what it is like to have no family to support you.
Rich people tend to benefit regardless...
Woman buys food for her kids with SNAP funds at Safeway and where does that money go? Right back into the till that ultimately feeds Safeway's P&L, and who does that P&L benefit most?
I'd go on, but I think we're veering off topic into the realm of politics. We've got enough confusion revolving around morals, but whatever you want to call taxes, don't forget to include the fact that taxes are necessary. No getting around them. The need for taxes is quite obvious when it comes to the functioning of any advanced society.
definitely true ... dirt poor and rich shouldn't even be voting. IMO of course. If the rich would just share (pay close to what I pay in terms of percentages) a little bit they could carry us all.
Seems you've just taken away the right to vote from nearly a billion people, but at least the number of people living in extreme poverty is dropping...
Seems you've just taken away the right to vote from nearly a billion people, but at least the number of people living in extreme poverty is dropping...
I know you'd like to pretend it's a contradiction...but it isn't.
Cue the goal post moving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Atheism has no doctrine or edicts to base or motivate a charitable attitude upon like many Theological precepts do.
But like any other position a person or group may take...it is still a persuasion that may compel a negative feeling toward those that do not think likewise...and in that way it can breed contempt that has been known to cause great harm.
This is true of EVERY group, it is called in group / out group morality. And atheists are no different, except as you admit, there are no doctrine or edicts to base or motivate anything (good or bad), unlike many Theological precepts do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
NonTheist aggression toward Theists (for being Theist)...equals, if not surpasses aggression going the other way...especially in modern times.
The CCP, right this minute, has over a million Uyghurs (because they hold the Religious Beliefs they do) held prisoner in concentration camps.
Also true for people wearing trousers, being male, and power mad dictators. And as I have explained before, the Uighurs are being persecuted because they refuse to conform, not because they are religious. Most Chinese are religious, and they are free to follow their religion so long as they follow the party line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
How many Atheists are being held by the Religious, because they don't believe?
How many are being murdered for being atheists? How many atheists keep quiet because they want to keep their heads?
Sometimes you seem to get closer to right rather than wrong, but not often...
True that atheism "has no doctrine or edicts" period. The issue is simply one having to do with the truth of these matters whether they suit us or not. Motivate us or not. In the same way, the truth "has no doctrine or edicts" either.
Again, however, you have a decidedly selective and one-sided way of looking at things. Just because religion can motivate people to do positive things does not mean it can't motivate people to do negative things. Why do you only see the breeding of contempt and/or great harm when it comes to "nontheist aggression toward theists?" What about the other way around? What about aggression between different religions?
Al-Qaeda was known to lure converts by helping people in need, with food and medicine. Viewed as quite "charitable" by those who would benefit from the charity. So what? Is it about how charity works as a recruiting tactic or inducement? If so and/or regardless, no doubt religion has been about helping the poor going back to the beginning. Among other things. That's not what atheism is about, because to be an atheist is simply to have no good reason to believe a god exists. Lack of evidence or proof in this regard has nothing to do with any other agenda or want to win brownie points for anything other than to separate truth from fiction.
My volunteer efforts to help those in need over the years has NOTHING to do with the fact I am an atheist. Perhaps others need some motivation or direction in that respect too, but is that necessarily a good thing or a better thing?
It's some pretty twisted logic to somehow equate the right or wrong about atheism with the CCP, but such is the sort of logic that you are forever twisting to absolute FUBAR. Why do you never tell tales like the one about who imprisoned Galileo? And why? What of the many theocratic governments very much alive and well today and the people they are putting in prison or killing because of religious beliefs? Why never anything about that sort of thing?
Why?
Confirmation bias in the extreme. That's why...
I noted "modern times" and "right this minute"...you cite how Galileo was treated.
The edicts and doctrine of some Theology, that was authored by people that thought that's how things should be and the penalty for noncompliance...is no more or less valid then some Penal Code, Constitution, Regulatory Rules, etc that was authored by people that thought that's how things should be and the penalties for noncompliance.
There is no "truth" as to what is "right" or "wrong"...that is subjective.
Stripping the freedom, liberty, and possessions from millions, for extended periods of time, because they choose to use intoxicating substances may be viewed as cruel, barbaric, and evil...and some other group may think our Government should be militarily compelled to stop that. The same as we took military action against other Countries for how they treated their population based upon whatever set of "rules" they went by.
Y'all just have some issue with the concept of "Religious Doctrine" as the arbitrary metric...when actually, it is no better or worse than any other.
I give the examples I do to show that Non-Religion will mess with the Religious for being that way, just as much as the Religious will mess with the Non-Religious (or differing Religious) for taking the position they do.
Actually...many secular penal codes are very similar to Theological based codes...and have many of the same "rules". Y'all just have a allergy to Religion, and get all messed up over it.
Add to the "Moral Rules" list: Do not view negatively or get on the case others for holding a differing idea of how things should be, or the basis for those ideas...as everyone is unique in that regard and no two think exactly alike about everything.
There is no "truth" as to what is "right" or "wrong"...that is subjective.
The fundamental principle of civilized laws is that all people have equal rights. Including the right to have a say in what laws are passed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
