Uche2nna:

LMAO

How does ur hatred for religion affect the price of fish?

Supposing you did pay 10% of your salary as tithes to your pastor and you spend another 5% on accessories like bible, tracks, offerings, transport to/from church. Does that not leave you with less month to spend on fish. If you have less money to spend on fish (while the pastors spend their ill-gotten gains of luxurious goods) do you think that might affect the price of fish?

huxley:

Supposing you did pay 10% of your salary as tithes to your pastor and you spend another 5% on accessories like bible, tracks, offerings, transport to/from church. Does that not leave you with less month to spend on fish. If you have less money to spend on fish (while the pastors spend their ill-gotten gains of luxurious goods) do you think that might affect the price of fish?

Wrong!!! It doesn't affect anything.

A bible can last a life time.
Tracts are free.
Offerings and tithes? You think most churches don't have welfare programs. Who would pay for electricity bills?
Transport to church? You can as well ban people that go to clubs every weekend.
It is quite unreasonable to think all pastors are living at the expense of the congregation.

Are you a good person, Huxley? Do most of the people who know you think you're one of the good guys? Or do they think that you are scumbag?

huxley:

Yes, the comment did not say that religions is the cause of all fucking-up.  It just said that where good people do evil, religions is that cause.

You seem not to understand English. The passage attributes all evils made by good people to religion. That is quite simply bullshit.

Bastage:

Are you a good person, Huxley? Do most of the people who know you think you're one of the good guys? Or do they think that you are scumbag?

Oh, yes, I am a very good person.

Bastage:

You seem not to understand English. The passage attributes all evils made by good people to religion. That is quite simply bullshit.

Supposing, for arguments sake I say that when ALL good people commit evil, they do it in the name of religion. Can you show any counter-example?


I gave you some examples of "good" people who have committed evil in the name of their religion and you have not responded to that.

[size=18pt]
I await your counter-example with bated breath.

[/size]

If you do not believe as a Christian does, you are called crazy. I have debated with Christians many times in an open forum and all of their reasoning is the same, you are a cult if you believe outside of the bible. Thus, I use the bible as proof when I am debating with Christians. I show them what is written right in their bible in the languages they were originally revealed and they still can’t handle the facts. I have said it before and will say it again. The bible is nothing more than an ancient soap opera. It is filled with hate, death, murder, prostitution, suicide and lust. Look at the many contradictions, errors and nonsense stories that are written in the bible. If you are a Christian, you will realize that you are the crazy person for believing in it, living by it and dying for it.

huxley:

Oh, yes, I am a very good person.

So you're a good person? But then I'll bet anything you like that you have committed at least one evil act in your life.
According to that quote, as you're a good man, that evil act must have been the result of religion.
You are your own counter-example.

for good people to do evil — that takes religion.

Good people commit evil acts every day, Huxley. Religious and non-religious alike.

Bastage:

So you're a good person? But then I'll bet anything you like that you have committed at least one evil act in your life.
According to that quote, as you're a good man, that evil act must have been the result of religion.
You are your own counter-example.

Good people commit evil acts every day, Huxley. Religious and non-religious alike.

NOPE. I have never committed an EVIL act in my life.

Bastage:

Good people commit evil acts every day, Huxley. Religious and non-religious alike.

Really?   OK,  what constitute an EVIL act to you.  Can we have your working definition of what evil is?  I attempted a definition of what good is above, can you try the definition of evil?

Which of the following acts would constitute evil by your definition?

1)  Stealing a sweet worth 10 pence  from a shop

2)  Tellings some lies about ones finances

3)  Commiting ethnic cleansing in which hundred and thousands are dispossessed or/and killed such as Hitler, PolPot, Amin, Stalin

4)   Deliberately poisoning a well from which a community draw water.

5)   Raping someone

6)   Wanton murder

7)   Depriving a child of medical care

8.)   Dropping litter on the street

9)   Exceeding the speed limit on the road

10)  Deliberate and calculated defrauding a community/country of its resources; corruption, embezzlement, etc, etc.

stillwater:

Wrong!!! It doesn't affect anything.

A bible can last a life time.
Tracts are free.
Offerings and tithes? You think most churches don't have welfare programs. Who would pay for electricity bills?
Transport to church? You can as well ban people that go to clubs every weekend.
It is quite unreasonable to think all pastors are living at the expense of the congregation.

LOL trust huxley to ignore this , u really put him in a tight corner

[quoter]NOPE. I have never committed an EVIL act in my life.[quote][/quote]

Should we call you "Saint Huxley"?

I would consider an evil act to be something that the majority consider to be immoral.

Bastage:

Should we call you "Saint Huxley"?

I would consider an evil act to be something that the majority consider to be immoral.

Call me a saint if you like. Are you also a saint or have you committed some evil acts in your life? If so, we would like to know about these, please.

I've commited acts that would be considered immoral - yes.

I've started fist-fights and I would steal money from my parents to buy sweets when I was younger.

Those acts certainly were not because of religion.

Are you telling me you've never done anything like that?

Bastage:

I've commited acts that would be considered immoral - yes.

I've started fist-fights and I would steal money from my parents to buy sweets when I was younger.

Those acts certainly were not because of religion.

Are you telling me you've never done anything like that?

You seem to have lost all sense of proportionality. Do you think your parents consider you as evil or to have committed evil acts? If you child did similar, would you think him evil?


By the way, how does you "evil" act compare with the evil acts of Pol Pot?

@Horus

Are you an atheist?

huxley:

Call me a saint if you like. Are you also a saint or have you committed some evil acts in your life? If so, we would like to know about these, please.

who does an atheist sin against? why should an atheist commit an evil act. . . . .to whom?, . .against whom?

huxley:

By the way, how does you "evil" act compare with the evil acts of Pol Pot?

Pol Pot was an atheist, Huxley.

mazaje:

where does it say that christians should go to the hospitals? the bible clearly tells christians that they are to go to the church elders for healing. . .the same bible even went ahead and says that   the jesus took away the sickness and infirmities of christians  
you are the one the believes the words of ancient people who believe that demons and evil spirits cause diseases. . . .

@esensed

ka sha kwaya ko? na ga sai copying and pasting kawai kake ta yi. . . ba ka ma san abun da kake yi ba. . . .sola scriptura ko? zauna nan ka na ta rudin kan ka. . . . .

where does the bible say "DONT GO TO HOSPITALS"?

the doctors refered to in the bible were they medical physicians or spiritualists?

A-Noetic:

who does an atheist sin against? why should an atheist commit an evil act. . . . .to whom?, . .against whom?

An atheist does not sin against anyone. In the world of an atheist, there is no such thing as sins. However, crimes, offenses, violations, infringements etc are notions recognised in the atheist world.

If an atheist commits an evil act, such acts could be committed againts individuals persons, societies, communities (or against other sentients animals). But never against a supernatural being.

Bastage:

Pol Pot was an atheist, Huxley.

Yes. But what is the argument?

You said you have committed evil acts in the past and I asked if your evils acts were equivalent to the acts of Pol Pot. Supposing I replace Pol Pot with Emperor Constantine, or the Christian leaders of the crusade?

Was Pol Pot an evil man before he committed those atrocities?

You're twisting and turning, Huxley.
The fact is that all human beings (good or bad) are capable of committing evil/immoral acts and that a lot of them do.

Blaming it all on religion is lazy and crass.

huxley:

An atheist does not sin against anyone. In the world of an atheist, there is no such thing as sins. However, crimes, offenses, violations, infringements etc are notions recognised in the atheist world.

If an atheist commits an evil act, such acts could be committed againts individuals persons, societies, communities (or against other sentients animals). But never against a supernatural being.

Bruv, its useless.

No matter how far you dumb it down they just dont get it.

A list of atheistic states in the 20th century and the number of people murdered by their regimes:

Afghanistan 1978–1992 1,750,000
Albania 1944–1985 100,000
Angola 1975–2002 125,000
Bulgaria 1944–1989 222,000
China/PRC 1923–2007 76,702,000
Cuba 1959–1992 73,000
Czechoslovakia 1948–1968 65,000
Ethiopia 1974–1991 1,343,610
Greece 1946–1949 20,000
Hungary 1948–1989 27,000
Kampuchea/Cambodia 1973–1991 2,627,000
Laos 1975–2007 93,000
Mongolia 1926–2007 100,000
Mozambique 1975–1990 118,000
North Korea 1948–2007 3,163,000
Poland 1945–1948 1,607,000
Romania 1948–1987 438,000
Spain (Republic) 1936–1939 102,000
U.S.S.R. 1917–1987 61,911,000
Vietnam 1945–2007 1,670,000
Yugoslavia 1944–1980 1,072,000


I'm sure that everyone of those atheists who pulled the trigger was evil from birth (right?). Or maybe it was just one evil guy who murdered them all?

Bastage:

Was Pol Pot an evil man before he committed those atrocities?

You're twisting and turning, Huxley.
The fact is that all human beings (good or bad) are capable of committing evil/immoral acts and that a lot of them do.

Blaming it all on religion is lazy and crass.

Well, I know nothing of Pol Pot before he committed his evil acts but I am sure there was a time when he was a good man.  Nothing I have said should be taken to mean that the nature of people is immutable.  People can change from being good to bad and vice versa.

You seem to be missing a point here and you have got many avenues for argumentation but am really surprise why you are not able to take them up.

Well, I know nothing of Pol Pot before he committed his evil acts but I am sure there was a time when he was a good man.

*sigh* Then you agree that the quote "but for good people to do evil — that takes religion" is wrong.

It should read "but for some good people to do evil - that takes religion".

Bastage:

*sigh* Then you agree that the quote "but for good people to do evil — that takes religion" is wrong.

It should read "but for some good people to do evil - that takes religion".

I agree with the qualification 100%. In fact, the orinal statements encapsulates a great deal of philosophical concepts that you could write 3 or 4 major tomes just on this subject. Just consider the following:

1) What is Good and What is Evil

2) How does one become good or evil or is one born good or evil and remains so immutably?

etc, etc. These are the sort of questions on which some philosophers build their career.

Let me show you a definition of evil I have recently come across:


Evil consist in intentionally behaving in ways that harm, abuse, demean, dehumanize or destroy innocent others - or using ones authority and systemic power to encourage or permit others to do so on your behalf

Source: The Lucifer Effect

Now, is it possible for one to slowly change from a good person to a bad/evil person over time?

I'm not interested in going into philosophy. It's irrelevant.
The quote states that "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."

"With or without religion implies that good people can be atheist or religious or that religion is not an issue. It then says that those people can do evil. But it then say that the only good people who commit evil acts do so because of religion."

That is utter, blatant bullshit. Basically, it's saying that the only good people who commit evil deeds are those who believe in religion.

We don't need to define good and evil. Pulling out philosophical concepts is a smoke-screen. The quote was written by an atheist and he uses the words "good" and "evil". We can therefore go off the generally accepted yardstick of atheism that an act of evil is an action that is viewed as immoral by the majority.

By implication, the quote is stating that the only decent people who commit immoral acts are the religious.
That is bullshit.

You have even admitted the Pol Pot could have been a good guy before he began committing atrocities. Do you not see the contradiction there?

Bastage:

I'm not interested in going into philosophy. It's irrelevant.
The quote states that "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."

"With or without religion implies that good people can be atheist or religious or that religion is not an issue. It then says that those people can do evil. But it then say that the only good people who commit evil acts do so because of religion."

That is utter, blatant bullshit. Basically, it's saying that the only good people who commit evil deeds are those who believe in religion.

We don't need to define good and evil. Pulling out philosophical concepts is a smoke-screen. The quote was written by an atheist and he uses the words "good" and "evil". We can therefore go off the generally accepted yardstick of atheism that an act of evil is an action that is viewed as immoral by the majority.

By implication, the quote is stating that the only decent people who commit immoral acts are the religious.
That is bullshit.

You have even admitted the Pol Pot could have been a good guy before he began committing atrocities. Do you not see the contradiction there?

I people of your ilk. I am inviting you to do a bit of deeper thinking and it is your failure to think that get you into such muddle.

Supposing Pol Pot was born good and remain good until he turned to politics, maybe thinking that in politics he was going to do the most good to his people. A noble ambition, I might add. Now, supposing having joined the political world he then realises that survive in politics he had to be ruthless and this causes him to abandon all the high goals and standard he had before.

This is a man slowly transmogrifying from a good into an evil man. At this point he would have lost all or most of his previous moral restraint. For some people it might happen very fast (over days, say) for other it is a slow inexorable progress towards evilness.

Yes, Pol Pot must have been an evil man a long while belong he physically killed or murdered the first man. Look at the definition of evil I gave;

Evil consist in intentionally behaving in ways that harm, abuse, demean, dehumanize or destroy innocent others - or using ones authority and systemic power to encourage or permit others to do so on your behalf

It is conceivable that Pol Pot was in the business of abusing, demeaning and dehumanizing people, possibly in words first rather than in action. The action came about from the minds of a man who was already knee-deep in evil.

Let me try another question. Which of these people would you consider evil?

1) Martin Luther

2) John Calvin

3) Mother Teresa

4) Moses

5) Joshua

6) The mother/father that deprive her/his children medical care

7) The Christian crusaders of Medieval Europe

8.) The Christian Inquisitionists of Medieval Europe

9) The Christian witch hunters of Medieval Europe

10) Jesus

Yes, Pol Pot must have been an evil man a long while belong he physically killed or murdered the first man.  Look at the definition of evil I gave.

Somehow I doubt that. It's easy to demonise the whole lives of people once they've fallen.
But logically, Pol Pot was not thought of as being an evil man before he committed those atrocities - he had many people who followed him freely because they thought he was morally correct.

What about an atheist who commits a war-crime in the heat of battle? He may be defending his country but committing an act that is evil. By that quote, his evil act isn't evil!!!

Huxley. I don't give a shit about the Crusaders or Popes, Jesus or Calvin, etc - they're irrelevant. I don't deny that evil has been committed in the name of Christianity. My point is that religion is not the root of all evil caused by good men as the quote suggests. My other point is that there are also good atheists who commit evil deeds as well.
To suggest otherwise is ignorant, false, malicious and totally and utterly illogical.

Bastage:


Somehow I doubt that. It's easy to demonise the whole lives of people once they've fallen.
But logically, Pol Pot was not thought of as being an evil man before he committed those atrocities - he had many people who followed him freely because they thought he was morally correct.

What about an atheist who commits a war-crime in the heat of battle? He may be defending his country but committing an act that is evil. By that quote, his evil act isn't evil!!!

Huxley. I don't give a shit about the Crusaders or Popes, Jesus or Calvin, etc - they're irrelevant. I don't deny that evil has been committed in the name of Christianity. My point is that religion is not the root of all evil caused by good men as the quote suggests. My other point is that there are also good atheists who commit evil deeds as well.
To suggest otherwise is ignorant, false, malicious and totally and utterly illogical.

The point we are debating is whether it take religion to motivate an ordinarily good person to do evil. And I wholeheartedly agree with this unless you show me how this is wrong.

Take for instance, the case of Mother Teresa. I would classify her as an "ordinarily good" person but her commitment to her religion and beliefs motivates her to encourage the poor and sick of the slums of Calcutta to give up seeking treatment and means of deliverage from poverty and illness. I think that is an evil act being committed by a "good" person. Why did she do that? Her philosophy of life is beeen warped by her religion.

Take the Pope, imploring people to avoid using condomns. I think this is an ordinarily good person committing an evil act.

Take the case of the child refuse medical care for religious reasons. This is the case of a good parent committing an evil act because of her religion.

Take the case of the murderer of abortion doctors.



I am waiting for some counter-examples where good people have committed evil acts for non-religions reasons. I am not saying that there are no such cases, but I just cannot think of them right now. And that is a difficiency of mine, not yours.

huxley:

The point we are debating is whether it take religion to motivate an ordinarily good person to do evil.

No it is not.
The point I made is that the statement made by Weinberg is incorrect. It summarises that religion is the only motivation for a good person to do evil.
That assertion is totally incorrect - religion is not the only motivating factor.

Bastage:

No it is not.
The point I made is that the statement made by Weinberg is incorrect. It summarises that religion is the only motivation for a good person to do evil.
That assertion is totally incorrect - religion is not the only motivating factor.

If you want to be pedantic,  the comment said nothing of the sort.  This is it again:

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.

If you were correct, then it could have said instead.

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes  [ONLY]  religion.


But it said nothing of the sort.

Another way to look at it is to ask the perpertrator of an act how they could or would justify their act.   For instance, how would the following have justified their acts:

1)  Pol Pot

2)  Amin

3)  John Calvin

4)  The Crusaders

5)  The parents who refuse medical care from their children

6)  Mother Teresa

7)  The inquisitionists


From here you could determine whether these people were motivated by religions, and also posssibly whether they were essentially good people.