The God Delusion on More 4

alex73

MagicMarker wrote: »

Interesting, I can't see where he says he gave his life for free though? Are you saying he received no money whatsoever in all his time as a priest?

Doesn't say a lot for the catholic church now does it? In fact that's pretty inhumane if you ask me.

So you are saying that Josef's life was worthless? That he should have ignored the dying on Molokai?

drkpower

alex73 wrote: »

who has dedicated their life totally to humanity.

Can you tell us what that means?

Would a doctor who works for MSF count?
If not, why not?

MagicMarker

alex73 wrote: »

So you are saying that Josef's life was worthless? That he should have ignored the dying on Molokai?

No, I'm just asking for clarification on the ''free'' part.

Ush1

Lets say you're right and that only the religious do good things, what does that say about their motivations for the deeds?

Fear, greed in the next life, etc...?

It totally infers their good deeds are selfish and done because they are instructed to do so.

alex73

MagicMarker wrote: »

No, I'm just asking for clarification on the ''free'' part.

I know of lots of people who give a year free to MSF (they get no pay) or work for the peace corp, or do other voluntary work.

I mean free that they give their lives totally to humanity because their think this is gods will, so their work in not driven by monetary ends, but humanitarian ends (their whole life).

For example Gandhi

MagicMarker

Also, how are we measuring the impact a person has on humanity?

Has Mother Teresa and her house of death contributed more to humanity than say, James D. Watson & Francis Crick, who discovered the structure of DNA? Or Einstein and his theory of general relativity? Or Thomas Edison?

drkpower

alex73 wrote: »

For example Gandhi

Ah cheers. Im taking Gandhi on my list.
Gandhi is an atheist (in respect of your God). So if anyone told him to do good deeds, he must obviously have been deluded, right?

storm2811

alex73 wrote: »

to Pick an example Jozef De Veuster.

There's also a priest in Dublin who takes in the homeless and others,he feeds them,helps them,if they want to get off drugs he recommends them to someone who can help.
He may not do it for free in way,he does get donations and grants to keep the house up and running of course,he couldn't do it without money.
And to whoever said they do it for fear of God or to get into the next life,well if you look at the life Jesus,he helped people his whole life didn't he?

Ush1

storm2811 wrote: »

And to whoever said they do it for fear of God or to get into the next life,well if you look at the life Jesus,he helped people his whole life didn't he?

I said it. I don't know if Jesus helped people his whole life, details of his life can sketchy but so what if he did? We are talking about a correlation between people being religious and doing good things, and people who are non religious not doing them.

Maybe Jesus did good things because he thought he was the son of God, this isn't doing good for the sake of it. I'd assume if you met someone tommorow who was doing good things and you asked why they were doing it and they replied, "Because I'm the son of god", you'd look at them a little funny.

MagicMarker

Bill Gates give billions every year to charity, he's also said he will leave his entire $60 billion fortune to charity to aid health and education world wide.

There, an atheist who will probably do more than every religious person who will ever live put together.

Not that it ACTUALLY matters, because as I'm sure we all know, the insinuation that atheists cannot be good, charitable people is utterly absurd.

Galvasean

Ush1 wrote: »

Lets say you're right and that only the religious do good things, what does that say about their motivations for the deeds?

Fear, greed in the next life, etc...?

It totally infers their good deeds are selfish and done because they are instructed to do so.

I was about to make that point.

alex73, who is truly the better person, the religious person who does good deeds to be rewarded in the next life or the atheist who does good deeds for the sake of doing good deeds?

edit: I'm not saying all good religious people do it to be rewarded. It's just food for thought.

storm2811

Ush1 wrote: »

I said it. I don't know if Jesus helped people his whole life, details of his life can sketchy but so what if he did? We are talking about a correlation between people being religious and doing good things, and people who are non religious not doing them.

Maybe Jesus did good things because he thought he was the son of God, this isn't doing good for the sake of it. I'd assume if you met someone tommorow who was doing good things and you asked why they were doing it and they replied, "Because I'm the son of god", you'd look at them a little funny.

Yes but what I meant was,whether he did them because he was the son of god or not,I think religious people like the priest I mentioned and Mother Teresa and so on,do it because it was what Jesus done and what he tried to teach people to do.

Of course I think atheists do good deeds aswell,I suppose it would be a bit ignorant to assume that just because because people are atheists that they do not.

Ush1

storm2811 wrote: »

Yes but what I meant was,whether he did them because he was the son of god or not,I think religious people like the priest I mentioned and Mother Teresa and so on,do it because it was what Jesus done and what he tried to teach people to do.

Of course I think atheists do good deeds aswell,I suppose it would be a bit ignorant to assume that just because because people are atheists that they do not.

Why didn't they do good things because it's what they themselves wanted to do it? Why have to be told?

MagicMarker

Why do people keep bring up Mother Teresa? What a terrible example!

storm2811

Ush1 wrote: »

Why didn't they do good things because it's what they themselves wanted to do it? Why have to be told?

Maybe they do?I never asked them.
I'll have to try and find that documentary about that priest in Dublin because he had some very valid reasons for doing what he did IIRC,not just religious reasons.

MagicMarker

storm2811 wrote: »

Maybe they do?I never asked them.
I'll have to try and find that documentary about that priest in Dublin because he had some very valid reasons for doing what he did IIRC,not just religious reasons.

What? Reasons other than religion? Surely this is not possible?!

Sam Vimes

alex73 wrote: »

Well I beleive (and so do millions of others) that god calls people to give their lives to him by helping others.

So if dawkins advocates that the world would be better off without religion then name a person (1 person ) who has dedicated their life totally to humanity.

As people have said I don't know what your criteria are. A far more important question would be: of all of those people who felt compelled to help others, do you think that they would not have done it had they not believed in god?

And if not, why not?

storm2811

MagicMarker wrote: »

What? Reasons other than religion? Surely this is not possible?!

Do you have to be so rude and sarcastic?
I've been trying to be polite as I can and then you come out with posts like that which don't add any value to the discussion either.

MagicMarker

storm2811 wrote: »

Do you have to be so rude and sarcastic?

Yep, it's all part of my charm.

Besides, the discussion had no value in it at all from this post onwards...

alex73 wrote: »

The reality is people with faith have a deeper commitment to humanity than those without it.

Ush1

storm2811 wrote: »

Maybe they do?I never asked them.
I'll have to try and find that documentary about that priest in Dublin because he had some very valid reasons for doing what he did IIRC,not just religious reasons.

Well that's what I'm saying, if their motivation is religious, they aren't doing selfless deeds. If their motivation is not religious, there is no debate.

Ush1

robindch wrote: »

Is that the frightful and permanently surprised-looking Wendy Wright who kept banging on about a creaTOR?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo

I'm not going to watch it again since I can do without the concomitant increase in blood pressure, but isn't this the one that in which Dawkins weathers Wright's abominable ramblings for longer than any thinking human could, then says "I must confess to feeling slightly frustrated..."

Oh man, just watched this. Was painful. Car crash like even.

It's funny, that Tom Haggard guy had the exact same manic smile, glaring eyes and this faux harmless type approach. They don't seem relaxed at all.

strobe

Ush1 wrote: »

It's funny, that Tom Haggard guy had the exact same manic smile, glaring eyes and this faux harmless type approach. They don't seem relaxed at all.

Well to be fair, in Haggard's case that would be the crystal meth, I'd imagine...... (that was Haggard right?)

WesternNight

strobe wrote: »

Well to be fair, in Haggard's case that would be the crystal meth, I'd imagine......

I'd totally forgotten about that!

"I bought it but never used it" :rolleyes:

mikhail

Ush1 wrote: »

Oh man, just watched this. Was painful. Car crash like even.

I could only watch the first fifteen minutes or so. I felt sorry for Dawkins watching that. He was talking to a wall.

I was getting really annoyed at her constantly trying to turn to conversation towards the moral implications of evolution. Even if she were right, and evolution logically lead to something horrifying (and that's a rather tired load of crap in its own right), it doesn't matter. The question is whether or not it's true. When she flat out ignored Dawkins on the hominid fossil record, repeatedly, I couldn't go on. She doesn't want to know, and I can neither stand nor understand people like that.

Ickle Magoo

strobe wrote: »

Well to be fair, in Haggard's case that would be the crystal meth, I'd imagine...... (that was Haggard right?)

Judging by those eyes pointing in different directions and goofy smile, it must have been. :pac:

Ush1

mikhail wrote: »

I could only watch the first fifteen minutes or so. I felt sorry for Dawkins watching that. He was talking to a wall.

I was getting really annoyed at her constantly trying to turn to conversation towards the moral implications of evolution. Even if she were right, and evolution logically lead to something horrifying (and that's a rather tired load of crap in its own right), it doesn't matter. The question is whether or not it's true. When she flat out ignored Dawkins on the hominid fossil record, repeatedly, I couldn't go on. She doesn't want to know, and I can neither stand nor understand people like that.

The worst was when she was trying to trap him into a "disabled people don't have a soul" sound byte. She really believed she had the upper hand at that stage, totally ignoring Dawkins said the word isn't meaningful to him in the same way it is to her.

robindch

alex73 wrote: »

The reality is people with faith have a deeper commitment to humanity than those without it.

Can you list off a few religious people who are more committed to humanity than their religion?

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

Can you list off a few religious people who are more committed to humanity than their religion?

But if you are commited to my religion you WILL be commited to humanity!

Fuhrer

alex73 wrote: »

Well I beleive (and so do millions of others) that god calls people to give their lives to him by helping others.

So if dawkins advocates that the world would be better off without religion then name a person (1 person ) who has dedicated their life totally to humanity.

Thomas Paine.

Waking-Dreams

Ush1 wrote: »

Oh man, just watched this. Was painful. Car crash like even.

It's funny, that Tom Haggard guy had the exact same manic smile, glaring eyes and this faux harmless type approach. They don't seem relaxed at all.

Have you skipped forward to the 3rd part, 3/7? At 2:25 she makes a HUGE slip up, "...God uses a form of creation, where evolution is a part of that... um, urg, let me back up on that..."