Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2019 2:59 PM
30 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,076 Year: 5,113/19,786 Month: 1,235/873 Week: 131/460 Day: 73/58 Hour: 6/12


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
Author Topic:   How Dawkins made me a better person
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6037
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 61 of 71 (551526)
03-23-2010 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Admin
03-22-2010 7:40 PM


This is the reason
I have left the forum in the past. For some reason it is acceptable to allow idiotic argument from people just because they are theists. Why should I extend a courtesy to someone that is obliviously trying to incite people?

If my response is bannable so be it. but I should not be expected to accept idiocy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Admin, posted 03-22-2010 7:40 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Admin, posted 03-23-2010 8:54 AM Theodoric has responded

    
Den
Member (Idle past 3209 days)
Posts: 36
From: Australia
Joined: 03-21-2010


Message 62 of 71 (551563)
03-23-2010 4:16 AM


Im looking at this issue from a practical sense not a logical one,

People here claim 30% is not alot, thats around 1 in 3 people who are dependant on charity could possibly find themselves without help if you abolished all the church funded charities.

Yes some money goes to running the churches, but secular charities have high administration and operating costs too.

In fact there are many secular charities exposed as fraudulent regularly or with rediculous operating costs, some as much as 95% used up on admin expenses. Secular charities are regularly exposed as being wasteful. I watched one documentary which exposed Unicef in Vietnam, charity staff living in resort style luxury and multi million dollar car fleets sitting idle while homeless single mothers where found begging on the same street.

It would be interesting to find the statistics to show who is more efficient at administering the money, churches vs secular charities.

Im happy for my views to be called idiotic if you can provide supporting evidence, but all I see here is just a bunch of assumptions and childish name calling.

Cheers
Den


Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Huntard, posted 03-23-2010 5:04 AM Den has not yet responded
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-23-2010 8:00 AM Den has not yet responded
 Message 65 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-23-2010 8:16 AM Den has not yet responded
 Message 69 by Taq, posted 03-23-2010 10:19 AM Den has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 403 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 63 of 71 (551567)
03-23-2010 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Den
03-23-2010 4:16 AM


Den writes:

People here claim 30% is not alot, thats around 1 in 3 people who are dependant on charity could possibly find themselves without help if you abolished all the church funded charities.


But why would this happen, instead of simply becoming non-religious charity organisations? Also, what if it was the other way around, 70% of the people, that's more then two thirds, would be without help if all those non-religious organisations would suddenly vanish when everybody became religious, as you assert. Yet I don't see you railing against the need of religious people to convert others to their religion.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Den, posted 03-23-2010 4:16 AM Den has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.0


Message 64 of 71 (551578)
03-23-2010 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Den
03-23-2010 4:16 AM


People here claim 30% is not alot, thats around 1 in 3 people who are dependant on charity could possibly find themselves without help if you abolished all the church funded charities.

Why, in your fantasy world, would people not just help others through secular charities?

Can we really imagine even one person saying to himself: "Well, an earthquake has hit Haiti ... so I would donate money ... except that there's no charity I can donate to that make belief in gibberish part of its official policy ... so I guess I'll just keep my money in my pocket, and screw the earthquake victims".

Your ideas make no sense. Look at it this way. 30% (let's say) of cars in Las Vegas are white. If you made a law forbidding the manufacture of white cars, would that mean that Las Vegas would have 30% less drivers? No, it wouldn't. Las Vegas would still have exactly as many drivers, they'd just be driving different colored cars. Because people drive because they want to reach their destination; the color of the car they're driving is incidental.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Den, posted 03-23-2010 4:16 AM Den has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.0


Message 65 of 71 (551580)
03-23-2010 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Den
03-23-2010 4:16 AM


Im looking at this issue from a practical sense not a logical one,

People here claim 30% is not alot, thats around 1 in 3 people who are dependant on charity could possibly find themselves without help if you abolished all the church funded charities.

Or to put it another way:

Im looking at this issue from a practical sense not a logical one,

People here claim 70% is not alot, thats around 2 in 3 people who are dependant on charity could possibly find themselves without help if you abolished all the secular charities.

So why are you against secularism? Do you want people to die? Are you some sort of monster?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Den, posted 03-23-2010 4:16 AM Den has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.0


Message 66 of 71 (551581)
03-23-2010 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Pauline
03-22-2010 11:24 PM


Hi Dr A. Yes, I was terribly at fault for what I said in the Forum name change thread. [referring to repent or perish...] Rahvin understood me. I, I do regret it. I'm VERY sorry. I'll try to do better in the future.

You have a good one.

Oh, I don't even remember the thing that you're so profusely apologizing for.

But whatever it was, we're OK, and it was nice of you to apologize.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Pauline, posted 03-22-2010 11:24 PM Pauline has acknowledged this reply

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12589
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 67 of 71 (551584)
03-23-2010 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Theodoric
03-23-2010 12:35 AM


Re: This is the reason
Theodoric writes:

If my response is bannable so be it. but I should not be expected to accept idiocy.

You have to work pretty hard to get banned. What usually happens is just short suspensions. A 24 hour suspension is what usually happens to those who have temporarily become just a little too worked up, or who think the Forum Guidelines don't apply to them. Longer suspensions happen to those who are a bit more creative, such as the 4-week suspension handed out to Bolder-dash, who after losing his posting privileges in the Biological Evolution forum posted his response to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread, in essence saying, "Oh yeah? Well make me!" But actual banning, in essence a permanent suspension, is rare, though the spammers who show up here with regularity are almost always banned. Oh, and David Mabus, he gets banned immediately each time he creates a new account.

Concerning idiocy, this isn't against the Forum Guidelines. EvC Forum is not here to protect you from idiocy, but rather to provide a venue for rational discussion where people can demonstrate just what is sense and what is nonsense. In other words, get to work.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Theodoric, posted 03-23-2010 12:35 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Theodoric, posted 03-23-2010 9:12 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6037
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 68 of 71 (551590)
03-23-2010 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Admin
03-23-2010 8:54 AM


Re: This is the reason
Oops meant suspend not ban
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Admin, posted 03-23-2010 8:54 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7694
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 69 of 71 (551601)
03-23-2010 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Den
03-23-2010 4:16 AM


In fact there are many secular charities exposed as fraudulent regularly or with rediculous operating costs, some as much as 95% used up on admin expenses. Secular charities are regularly exposed as being wasteful. I watched one documentary which exposed Unicef in Vietnam, charity staff living in resort style luxury and multi million dollar car fleets sitting idle while homeless single mothers where found begging on the same street.

No secular group or charity has anything approaching the war chest found in the Vatican.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Den, posted 03-23-2010 4:16 AM Den has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-23-2010 5:24 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1209 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 70 of 71 (551673)
03-23-2010 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Taq
03-23-2010 10:19 AM


No secular group or charity has anything approaching the war chest found in the Vatican.

Totally agree. Having personnally been to Vatican City twice I can say this is an understatement. Biggest religious racketeer in human history.

Yes, much of that is solid or plated gold.

Do you wonder where all the gold from the plunders, at the backs, torture and deaths of millions of Native American's and other indigenous people from around the world, went? Look no further (though the Vatican is not the only guilty party).


“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous.” - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Taq, posted 03-23-2010 10:19 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
killinghurts
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 71 of 71 (555061)
04-12-2010 2:34 AM


I stopped reading at this point

"Den" writes:


Thanks to your guidance I have worked out a way to be an even more successful person, simply hand your children over to an orphanage,

A person attempting to pass on their genes, and make sure they lived to breeding age would not give them away to an orphanage.


  
Prev1234
5
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019