(August 4, 2013 at 10:22 pm)Consilius Wrote: Something is 'freely given' when it is not demanded.

Wrong. 'Freely given' means lack of coercion - not lack of demand. For example. I demand that you leave all your money to me and then allow me to murder you by not running away when I point a gun at you. At this point, I'm not forcing you into anything - so no coercion. You are free to accept or reject my demand and if you believe self-sacrifice is good and you want to be good - you should accept it.

(August 4, 2013 at 10:22 pm)Consilius Wrote: Not necessary. The rich stand up for the poor. Straight men and women fight for gay rights. Adults fight for the rights of children. Why would one support another demographic when he or she could simply fight for his own?

Because:

" First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Catholic.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me."


Right now, if I'm rich, straight and an adult, my rights are not at risk - so there is no need to fight for them. Supporting others' rights right now ensures mine won't be in danger in the future.

(August 4, 2013 at 10:22 pm)Consilius Wrote: This is the bottom of the well. This answer can apply to any other instance I present.
Therefore, I do not actually care about my fellow members of society, I only help them to ease my own guilty conscience and in the hope that they help me later.

No, it can't. In my example, the "gain" from giving to charity is limited - so the when and how much you should give is limited as well. The moment that the amount of donation makes you flinch, you should stop.

As for your example, I do care about my fellow members of society - but not enough to go around throwing away my hard-earned money. I don't have a guilty conscience simply because I have more than others and the expectation of future help is not very reasonable.

(August 4, 2013 at 10:22 pm)Consilius Wrote: How does the word selfish NOT apply to this view of morality?

It does. So what?

Detrimenting yourself or your standard of living in normal cases of self-sacrifice is not what is being called for here. It's about giving what you can without great damage to yourself. I won't give my salary away so a bum can get a beer. I won't give my life savings to a charity, or else I'll become a charity case. It's pointless.
In a murder, the loss of my life won't save anyone else's. I'd be giving all I have to get someone else something less valuable.

As for 'giving as much as you'll get back', there are a lot of people in the world who need more than they can ever give back. Humanity can't GROW if we don't ADD anything to it.

(August 5, 2013 at 8:22 am)Consilius Wrote: Detrimenting yourself or your standard of living in normal cases of self-sacrifice is not what is being called for here. It's about giving what you can without great damage to yourself. I won't give my salary away so a bum can get a beer. I won't give my life savings to a charity, or else I'll become a charity case. It's pointless.

Its very amusing - seeing you dance about trying to rationalize Christian morality to make it more acceptable to anyone with any common sense. The fact is, "detrimenting yourself and your standard of living" is precisely what your religion calls for. Its not "self-sacrifice" if there isn't any damage to yourself.

If I give away my used old clothes to charity - I'm not being particularly self-sacrificial. I don't use them anymore and I'm not getting any money for them - so giving them away costs me nothing. But if I give away all of my worldly possessions - that would be considered self-sacrifice. And that is precisely what your religion holds as its core value. Consider the nuns - those who are regarded as unequivocally good and moral within your religion - are the ones who are required to take a vow of poverty and give up their worldly possessions.

The simple truth is, the greater the damage to oneself, the greater the "detriment to yourself and your standard of living", the more that person is regarded as the symbol of "good" and "holy". If you don't give away your salary to a bum to buy beer, then you are not being true to your own Christian morality. You are choosing your money and your comfort over your morality. And yes, it is pointless - but then, so is your morality.

(August 5, 2013 at 8:22 am)Consilius Wrote: In a murder, the loss of my life won't save anyone else's. I'd be giving all I have to get someone else something less valuable.

Less valuable to whom? For the murderer, your life is of lesser value than your money - soon to be his money. And he might end up using that money to feed his starving children, so you giving your life would save someone else. But that's irrelevant. If you believe self-sacrifice to be good then you have to put yourself, your life and your possessions below anyone else's benefit.

(August 5, 2013 at 8:22 am)Consilius Wrote: As for 'giving as much as you'll get back', there are a lot of people in the world who need more than they can ever give back. Humanity can't GROW if we don't ADD anything to it.

In order to make the humanity grow and to add to it, you have to do the opposite - make sure what you've given gives you greater return. Its a simple economic principle - if I give a certain amount and get back lesser amount, then I'm working at a loss. If I keep doing it, then pretty soon I'd be bankrupt. And if I keep taking more than I give back then that difference is lost to humanity. And if more and more people do it, more and more would be lost to us. Doing the reverse - giving with expectation of greater return and taking with a promise of greater return - is how humanity grows and adds to itself.

(August 5, 2013 at 9:15 am)genkaus Wrote: The fact is, "detrimenting yourself and your standard of living" is precisely what your religion calls for. Its not "self-sacrifice" if there isn't any damage to yourself.

A significant detriment of oneself is uncalled for.

Quote:But if I give away all of my worldly possessions - that would be considered self-sacrifice. And that is precisely what your religion holds as its core value.

And yet the streets aren't lined with Christians in rags.

Quote:Consider the nuns - those who are regarded as unequivocally good and moral within your religion - are the ones who are required to take a vow of poverty and give up their worldly possessions.

Nuns are the elite of humanity?

Quote:The simple truth is, the greater the damage to oneself, the greater the "detriment to yourself and your standard of living", the more that person is regarded as the symbol of "good" and "holy".

If that was true, religion would be a meritocracy. Something exclusive to your worldview. You don't become a better person by the stuff you give away—a precept Christ specifically treated.

Quote:Less valuable to whom? For the murderer, your life is of lesser value than your money - soon to be his money. And he might end up using that money to feed his starving children, so you giving your life would save someone else. But that's irrelevant. If you believe self-sacrifice to be good then you have to put yourself, your life and your possessions below anyone else's benefit.

Human life is objectively valuable, unless relativism objects to that too.
My death is not instrumental to feeding the hypothetical children you brought into the scenario neither to me or to a third party—only to the murderer, who had plenty of different ways to solve his problem, and even get money from myself, without murder.

Quote:In order to make the humanity grow and to add to it, you have to do the opposite - make sure what you've given gives you greater return. Its a simple economic principle - if I give a certain amount and get back lesser amount, then I'm working at a loss. If I keep doing it, then pretty soon I'd be bankrupt. And if I keep taking more than I give back then that difference is lost to humanity.

Lost. To the billions of poor and starving. Do people burn your financial losses, or do they circulate?

Quote:And if more and more people do it, more and more would be lost to us. Doing the reverse - giving with expectation of greater return and taking with a promise of greater return - is how humanity grows and adds to itself.

That is a description of how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
To make humanity grow is to strike a balance between rich and poor, which is to take a loss and let someone else get the profit every once in a while.

(August 5, 2013 at 9:53 am)Consilius Wrote: A significant detriment of oneself is uncalled for.

Yes, it is.

(August 5, 2013 at 9:53 am)Consilius Wrote: And yet the streets aren't lined with Christians in rags.

That's because Christians don't follow their own principle of putting morals before money - they just preach it.

(August 5, 2013 at 9:53 am)Consilius Wrote: Nuns are the elite of humanity?

According to your religion.

(August 5, 2013 at 9:53 am)Consilius Wrote: If that was true, religion would be a meritocracy. Something exclusive to your worldview. You don't become a better person by the stuff you give away—a precept Christ specifically treated.

That's not what meritocracy means - so, no. And according to your religion, you do become a better person by giving stuff away.

(August 5, 2013 at 9:53 am)Consilius Wrote: Human life is objectively valuable, unless relativism objects to that too.

If it was objectively valuable then it'd be measurable - which it isn't. And that has nothing to do with relativism.

(August 5, 2013 at 9:53 am)Consilius Wrote: My death is not instrumental to feeding the hypothetical children you brought into the scenario neither to me or to a third party—only to the murderer, who had plenty of different ways to solve his problem, and even get money from myself, without murder.

Your death is instrumental to some benefit to the murderer and according to the doctrine to self-sacrifice, that is sufficient reason for you to accept your death.

(August 5, 2013 at 9:53 am)Consilius Wrote: Whatever profit you would make would come from everyone else, making you a little richer and everyone else a little poorer.

Wrong. Life isn't a zero-sum game where my benefit necessarily means someone else's loss. Humanity would never have been able to grow so much if that was the case.

(August 5, 2013 at 9:53 am)Consilius Wrote: To make humanity grow is to strike a balance between rich and poor, which is to take a loss and let someone else get the profit every once in a while.

Wrong. If you try to focus on the balance, all you'd accomplish is keeping humanity where it is. The way to make it grow is by making everyone richer than they are - including yourself.

(August 5, 2013 at 10:08 am)genkaus Wrote: That's because Christians don't follow their own principle of putting morals before money - they just preach it.

Every Christian in the world forgot that you get a free pass into heaven when you live below the poverty line. Martin Luther King must feel pretty stupid now. We probably should have checked that part before we put it into our Bible.

Quote:According to your religion.

Show me the evidence.

Quote:And according to your religion, you do become a better person by giving stuff away.

According to my religion:
"If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing." 1 Corinthians 13:3

Quote:If it was objectively valuable then it'd be measurable - which it isn't.

I'm sorry, I meant human life is inherently valuable. And it's value is not open to opinion.

Quote:Your death is instrumental to some benefit to the murderer and according to the doctrine to self-sacrifice, that is sufficient reason for you to accept your death.

You haven't created a scenario where I can possibly imagine my death being the only solution to giving someone else the value of a life. I shouldn't have to give you a twenty if you need five bucks.

Quote:Wrong. Life isn't a zero-sum game where my benefit necessarily means someone else's loss. Humanity would never have been able to grow so much if that was the case.

Not my point.

Quote:Wrong. If you try to focus on the balance, all you'd accomplish is keeping humanity where it is.

The wealthy and the poor are balanced?

Quote:The way to make it grow is by making everyone richer than they are - including yourself.

If you mean that the individual should try to make everyone richer, that's perfectly fine. There's nothing wrong with seeking profit. But in your doing that, you are giving people money you could have used on yourself and you probably won't get it back.
If you mean that we should ALL become richer, that won't accomplish anything. Pay an oil tycoon and a gardener 20% of his or her income, and nothing changes.

(August 5, 2013 at 11:13 am)Consilius Wrote: Every Christian in the world forgot that you get a free pass into heaven when you live below the poverty line. Martin Luther King must feel pretty stupid now. We probably should have checked that part before we put it into our Bible.

If you say so. And Martin Luther King is dead - he can't feel stupid.

(August 5, 2013 at 11:13 am)Consilius Wrote: Show me the evidence.

Those revered as saints are often the ones who give up their "worldlt possessions".

(August 5, 2013 at 11:13 am)Consilius Wrote: According to my religion:
"If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing." 1 Corinthians 13:3

Also, according to your religion:

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.
" Matthew 19:24

(August 5, 2013 at 11:13 am)Consilius Wrote: I'm sorry, I meant human life is inherently valuable. And it's value is not open to opinion.

There is no such thing as an "inherent" value. Value, by definition, is a conceptual property assigned to the object by the observer. It does not exist without the observer and therefore cannot be inherent.

(August 5, 2013 at 11:13 am)Consilius Wrote: You haven't created a scenario where I can possibly imagine my death being the only solution to giving someone else the value of a life. I shouldn't have to give you a twenty if you need five bucks.

I don't need to create such a scenario, because according to you, self-sacrifice is not a contextual moral principle , i.e. its application changes from one scenario to the next. If you believe it to be universally "good", then you shouldn't need a scenario where it is the only option. Even if it is one of the many options, you should take it.

(August 5, 2013 at 11:13 am)Consilius Wrote: Not my point.

Doesn't change the fact that it is wrong.

(August 5, 2013 at 11:13 am)Consilius Wrote: The wealthy and the poor are balanced?

Nope.

Quote:The way to make it grow is by making everyone richer than they are - including yourself.

(August 5, 2013 at 11:13 am)Consilius Wrote: If you mean that the individual should try to make everyone richer, that's perfectly fine.

No, I'm saying that every individual should try simply try to make himself richer. And since doing so at someone else's expense would result in a greater chance of his becoming poorer, every individual should try to make himself richer without making anyone else poorer.

[quote='Consilius' pid='488495' dateline='1375715610']There's nothing wrong with seeking profit.

According to your religion - there is.

(August 5, 2013 at 11:13 am)Consilius Wrote: But in your doing that, you are giving people money you could have used on yourself and you probably won't get it back.

That's not seeking profit.

(August 5, 2013 at 11:13 am)Consilius Wrote: If you mean that we should ALL become richer, that won't accomplish anything. Pay an oil tycoon and a gardener 20% of his or her income, and nothing changes.

Wrong. Everyone becoming richer is precisely why humanity has grown so far. It is precisely why we are no longer the moronic goat-herders listening to a delusional carpenter.

(August 5, 2013 at 11:46 am)genkaus Wrote: Those revered as saints are often the ones who give up their "worldlt possessions".

The Virgin Mary. St. Thomas More. St. Maria Goretti. St. Louis IX, King of France. St. Margaret, Queen of Scotland.
According to whatever YOU heard, a saint is a priest or a nun.

Quote:Also, according to your religion:
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.
" Matthew 19:24

Dismissing formerly given evidence to find a counter-example. I can only assume this is because it proved you wrong.
I can't tell if you are being serious or just trying to trip me up. That Bible verse is famous.
Jesus never said the rich couldn't enter God's kingdom. He did not calculate the probability of a landowner successfully looping camel guts through a needle and set up an equation. He said being rich and good is hard. The rich have to struggle with putting morals over money. They have to learn to control their wealth or it controls them.

Quote:There is no such thing as an "inherent" value.

Human life has a constant value. It can never be less valuable than money, no matter what anyone thinks. A judge and a jury will enforce that.

Quote:Even if it is one of the many options, you should take it.

Placing me in a fake scenario based off a conclusion you jumped into as a subterfuge.
"It's good to give away ice cream," I said. Therefore, I should exhaust my bank account giving every man, woman, and child I happen to come across a fudge pop.
Why?
Because Jesus said that if I don't walk down the street looking for people to kill me, I am going to burn in hell.
"All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff. But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way." Luke 4:28-30
"At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds." John 8:59
"Again they tried to seize [Jesus], but he escaped their grasp." John 10:39
"No one hates his own body but feeds and cares for it." Ephesians 5:29

Quote:No, I'm saying that every individual should try simply try to make himself richer. And since doing so at someone else's expense would result in a greater chance of his becoming poorer, every individual should try to make himself richer without making anyone else poorer.

Every man for himself? Why didn't we think of this before? I mean, why don't the poor just go get more money?

(August 5, 2013 at 11:13 am)Consilius Wrote: But in your doing that, you are giving people money you could have used on yourself and you probably won't get it back.

Quote:That's not seeking profit.

No, it isn't.

(August 5, 2013 at 11:13 am)Consilius Wrote: If you mean that we should ALL become richer, that won't accomplish anything. Pay an oil tycoon and a gardener 20% of his or her income, and nothing changes.

Quote:Wrong. Everyone becoming richer is precisely why humanity has grown so far. It is precisely why we are no longer the moronic goat-herders listening to a delusional carpenter.

Humanity has grown how far? Of course, if you're rich and white, you've made huge advancements, and you live under the illusion that all humanity is moving forward. Everyone else? There is little difference between the poor now and those of ancient Babylon. That's why the OT admonishes the rich to take care of the poor. They were apparently more progressive than you.
Apparently the goat-herders did better math than you, too. There are people who are extremely rich, while others are extremely poor. The gap is enormous. When everyone gets their paycheck (the amount of which varies according to your race or gender), the gap gets even wider. If you don't agree with that, you'll need a math problem.
And what exactly is WRONG with being a Jewish goat-herder or a carpenter?! Does their message become more reliable when it comes from a diplomat and a multibillionaire?

(August 5, 2013 at 10:29 pm)Consilius Wrote: The Virgin Mary. St. Thomas More. St. Maria Goretti. St. Louis IX, King of France. St. Margaret, Queen of Scotland.
According to whatever YOU heard, a saint is a priest or a nun.

What I've actually heard is that your religion celebrates and reveres misery and suffering - and nowhere did I say that saints are only priests or nuns. Let me present my argument step-by-step so that it is easier to understand:

1. Your religion reveres suffering and misery as good.

Ist line of evidence:
- Suffering and misery in their lives (whether as a part of it or the effect) is a common element for all saints.
- Only people who cause or undergo suffering are canonized

2nd line of evidence
- Giving up the worldly possessions is one way to live in misery.
- Nuns have to give up their possessions.
- Nuns are considered holy and good within your religion.

(August 5, 2013 at 10:29 pm)Consilius Wrote: Dismissing formerly given evidence to find a counter-example. I can only assume this is because it proved you wrong.
I can't tell if you are being serious or just trying to trip me up. That Bible verse is famous.
Jesus never said the rich couldn't enter God's kingdom. He did not calculate the probability of a landowner successfully looping camel guts through a needle and set up an equation. He said being rich and good is hard. The rich have to struggle with putting morals over money. They have to learn to control their wealth or it controls them.

The fact that I have given a counter-example shows that you haven't proven me wrong.
Unlike you, I don't go around twisting words into something more "acceptable". I take them at their face-value. And what I see here is Jesus saying that the rich cannot enter god's kingdom. Your pathetic rationalization does nothing to change that.

And while we are on the subject - thanks for proving my point. Your biblical morality is irrational and tells you to be poor and the only way you can make it say otherwise is by doing what you did here - by saying that it doesn't 'actually' mean that but it means something opposite.

(August 5, 2013 at 10:29 pm)Consilius Wrote: Human life has a constant value. It can never be less valuable than money, no matter what anyone thinks. A judge and a jury will enforce that.

Wrong. Once again. If life had a constant value, then every loss of life would incur the same cost irrespective of the manner of that loss.

For example, a vase in a store has a constant value. So whether you break it accidentally or on purpose, you have to pay that value to the owner.

But the value of human life - that is not constant. Its estimate changes on a case by case basis and that is what the judge and the jury enforce. Right now, the most commonly accepted estimate is $50,000 per year of quality life.

(August 5, 2013 at 10:29 pm)Consilius Wrote: Placing me in a fake scenario based off a conclusion you jumped into as a subterfuge.
"It's good to give away ice cream," I said. Therefore, I should exhaust my bank account giving every man, woman, and child I happen to come across a fudge pop.
Why?

Because of what you just said - that it's good to give away ice-cream. If you believe that giving away ice-cream is good and you want to be good, then exhausting your bank account to give fudge pop to everyone is precisely what you should be doing.

(August 5, 2013 at 10:29 pm)Consilius Wrote: Because Jesus said that if I don't walk down the street looking for people to kill me, I am going to burn in hell.
"All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff. But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way." Luke 4:28-30
"At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds." John 8:59
"Again they tried to seize [Jesus], but he escaped their grasp." John 10:39
"No one hates his own body but feeds and cares for it." Ephesians 5:29

All you are doing here is proving that Jesus did not practice what he preached.

(August 5, 2013 at 10:29 pm)Consilius Wrote: Every man for himself? Why didn't we think of this before? I mean, why don't the poor just go get more money?

Because of the crazy Christian morals they've taken to heart.

(August 5, 2013 at 11:13 am)Consilius Wrote: Humanity has grown how far? Of course, if you're rich and white, you've made huge advancements, and you live under the illusion that all humanity is moving forward. Everyone else? There is little difference between the poor now and those of ancient Babylon. That's why the OT admonishes the rich to take care of the poor. They were apparently more progressive than you.

Now you are just showing your ignorance. The poor today - even in third world countries - are much better off that those in ancient Babylon. Even for the poorest the life expectancy is longer, the food security is higher, the health concerns are smaller and the expectation of a better life is more realistic. So yes, there is a big difference between the poor now and the poor of ancient Babylon.

(August 5, 2013 at 11:13 am)Consilius Wrote: Apparently the goat-herders did better math than you, too. There are people who are extremely rich, while others are extremely poor. The gap is enormous. When everyone gets their paycheck (the amount of which varies according to your race or gender), the gap gets even wider. If you don't agree with that, you'll need a math problem.

You know what else is enormous - the gap between the paycheck of a poor person now and the one in ancient Babylon. As a matter of fact, income of a poor person today would be greater than that of someone from Babylonian middle-class. If you don't agree with that, you'll need a history lesson.

(August 5, 2013 at 11:13 am)Consilius Wrote: And what exactly is WRONG with being a Jewish goat-herder or a carpenter?! Does their message become more reliable when it comes from a diplomat and a multibillionaire?

If they were the ones sending that message - yes, it'd be more reliable. There is a tacit assumption that a multi-billionaire or a diplomat would have a better understanding of politics, history and economics than a Jewish goat-herder and a carpenter. So, any statement regarding growth and development of humanity would be more reliable coming from them. And there is nothing wrong with being a Jewish goat-herder or a carpenter as long as they stick to their day-jobs. But when they start making comments on cosmology or anthropology, all they are doing is putting their ignorance on display.

(August 6, 2013 at 5:53 am)genkaus Wrote: - Suffering and misery in their lives (whether as a part of it or the effect) is a common element for all saints.
- Only people who cause or undergo suffering are canonized

If it took suffering to be a saint, we would all be canonized.

Quote:2nd line of evidence
- Giving up the worldly possessions is one way to live in misery.

It's misery if you can't find joy in anything but your bank account.

Quote:- Nuns have to give up their possessions.
- Nuns are considered holy and good within your religion.

So the nuns are good people while the rest of us are damned. You'd think that a priest might have given us sinners a heads-up of some sort. They do any other time.

Quote:The fact that I have given a counter-example shows that you haven't proven me wrong.

For reasons known to you alone, if there are any.

Quote:Unlike you, I don't go around twisting words into something more "acceptable". I take them at their face-value.

Because that's the only way you can maintain your Christian caricature?
You know that my interpretation, as well as pretty much any interpretation from any Christian anywhere in regards to THEIR OWN HOLY BOOK sets the record straight. It makes Christians look less than crazy. You can't have that. No aspect of Christianity can appear slightly OK because if it does, we fit in. Atheism shares its glow with another belief system. But atheists alone are good, and no one else is. The bigotry that started the Crusades.
You are literally interpreting a simile, a device ancient literature is riddled with. If you wouldn't do it while reading the Aeneid, why do it with a Bible?

Quote:And while we are on the subject - thanks for proving my point. Your biblical morality is irrational and tells you to be poor and the only way you can make it say otherwise is by doing what you did here - by saying that it doesn't 'actually' mean that but it means something opposite.

All bums go to heaven. You know you can't prove that. A Bible verse that says you need to be poor to be good, in the Bible, please. Not a supposed condemnation of the rich.
That a complete lack of ownership of goods is inherently good, in any way.

Quote:Wrong. Once again. If life had a constant value, then every loss of life would incur the same cost irrespective of the manner of that loss.

I did not say that murder had a fixed gravity as an offense. The loss of a life is a fixed loss. However much of the loss needs to be paid back depends on how it was lost.
And the murderer didn't kill me by accident. I don't know where this claim even came from.

Quote:Because of what you just said - that it's good to give away ice-cream. If you believe that giving away ice-cream is good and you want to be good, then exhausting your bank account to give fudge pop to everyone is precisely what you should be doing.

Isn't giving away ice cream good already? Don't you want to be a good person? But are you a bad person whenever you don't show up at a friend's house with an ice cream cone?

Quote:All you are doing here is proving that Jesus did not practice what he preached.

Christ's life was a sermon. Which is why he did not list the theological implications of his death while hanging from a cross.
Christ did practice what he preached. He didn't practice what YOU preached. The morals you are criticizing are the ones you invented, not mine.
You are winning a fight against a dummy that you truly believe is your challenger, who is watching you and telling you why the dummy can't beat you or him.

Quote:Because of the crazy Christian morals they've taken to heart.

What an extraordinary assertion. It's not a lack of opportunities or financial resources, nope, it's THE CHRISTIANS! The little boy without a lunch threw his quarters into a garbage dump after a Sunday Mass. The solution to the world's problems is atheism. How coincidentally favorable to your views!
Now you just sound Christian, nearly WBC Christian. "The gays are responsible for pedophilia! 9/11 happened because of abortion! Gay marriage is why soldiers are dying! Atheism caused the Holocaust!"
Um, can you explain why Christians donate money to the poor?

Quote:Now you are just showing your ignorance. The poor today - even in third world countries - are much better off that those in ancient Babylon. Even for the poorest the life expectancy is longer, the food security is higher, the health concerns are smaller and the expectation of a better life is more realistic. So yes, there is a big difference between the poor now and the poor of ancient Babylon.

It's OK, guys, the poor aren't THAT bad. They all have homes and jobs, and all they get are common colds.
And guess what? The RICH are also doing a whole lot better, making the relative improvement of poor lifestyles zero, to be optimistic.

Quote:If they were the ones sending that message - yes, it'd be more reliable. There is a tacit assumption that a multi-billionaire or a diplomat would have a better understanding of politics, history and economics than a Jewish goat-herder and a carpenter. So, any statement regarding growth and development of humanity would be more reliable coming from them.

Of course. The poor don't REALLY know how poor they are, or how bad they have it, they need prime ministers and stock investors to punch their calculators in ties on leather armchairs in air-conditioned rooms to tell them.

Quote:And there is nothing wrong with being a Jewish goat-herder or a carpenter as long as they stick to their day-jobs. But when they start making comments on cosmology or anthropology, all they are doing is putting their ignorance on display.

I don't think Jesus came to preach Creation Theory.