Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 4/8/09 09:47 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: So am I getting this right that the only argument so for not respecting religion is:

- It's scientifically wrong (no fucking shit)

Jack ol' buddy ol' pal, what would you say if it were scientificly wrong for you to exist?
I've said this before, if you believe our world came from rocks n crap smashing into eachother, with no life or potential of life, n that water seeing as the earth is far too close to the sun, would have no chance of condencing onto it without an atmosphere, where did the atmosphere come from?
They say where theres water there is life, there is alot of water on other planets yet we've seen next to nothing which sprouts the religious belief in aliens, fuck even Dawkins likes the bleief in aliens, n he admited that we may have been created by them, but nooofkingway, he downright has faith that if we were created by aliens then they would've had to have been created by evolutionist bullcrap.

So dear old buddy Jack, I'll give you a chance to justify your belief to me, where/how/why did life originally come from if not by God? Hit me with your best shot.

- You can achieve the self-help/community through other means

Meaning..... people have the urge to help others yet there has to be no outside source of where that sentimentality came from? Seeing as alot of animals don't give a shit about eachother, you're implying that we "evolved" instead of compeltely dieing out from not giving a shit?

Reminding everyone that evolution is often seen as random chance/change, I give no confidence in the belief that we somehow randomly became what we are today, its just not ligical seeing as our body is made up of things that we need minus the tonsils n apendix though they have had vital uses but not so much anymore, I refuse to believe that our nearly perfect design was a result of random changes, if random changes ever occured, give me proof, give me pictures of human n animal remains that are indecipherable as to what the person/animal was supposed to be, even in that sense, birth defects are common n are not a result of random chance/change but the result of damaged DNA n outside sources like alchohol.
So anyway deisregard that last demand of proof since there is none, give me proof of a fundamental mutation that actually helps people or animals, no extra arms or legs/eyes/heads/ect.
Yes, give me proof of a random change that happened instantly, one that didn't develope overtime since that obviously isn't evolution is it, its adaptation which is a natural way, not random chance/changes.

Because that's a pretty weak argument for getting rid of something.

Noooooshit, you would think an argument like that would get rid of Hitler? Fuck no, once a person's mind is made up no amount of logic or reality check will beat a stupid idea out, the irony is that people who claim to be atheist n that atheism isn't a blief, they will believe everything else, fucking brainwashed alien souls posessing human? WTF

I suppose, it creates a filter between your mind and yourself. So if you get rid of ALL of those (society included) you would come up with a much stronger self.

Yey society is what made you everything you are today, you owe your belief/life to society, you deny it yet you defend it with every bullshit story in the book.....what side are you on man?
So...believing in something fake will make you stronger? .......wow i never thought about it that way....

(sigh) I really wish I could help you, but like Hitler, plain logic wont do, you have to figure shit out for yourself, hipefully you wont go on a killing spree with your religious group n justify it with some psychotic natural selection bullshit, getfo of there.

Peace my freind, may the light embrace you! XD

---

At 4/8/09 12:18 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:

why do you insist upon doing this to yourself?

---

At 4/8/09 12:20 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

At 4/8/09 12:18 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:

why do you insist upon doing this to yourself?

He's a fallacy sandwich. It's his job to make inaccurate statements he knows are wrong.

---

At 4/8/09 09:36 AM, Brick-top wrote: Society - Chainsaw
Religious society - Chainsaw with deafness.

Is that right?

Yes that is right. And yes, that means I'm now agreeing with your over-arching argument.

Also... regarding everything else I cute out, I'm not arguing that there are no alternatives to what religion offers. It's not the fact alone that there are alternatives (in most cases of equal efficacy) outside of religion, so offering alternatives endlessly doesn't prove anything. It's that those alternatives don't hinge on a systemic dysfunction (belief without reasonable evidence).

I'm pretty sure we're still agreeing?

At 4/8/09 09:47 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: So am I getting this right that the only argument so for not respecting religion is:

- It's scientifically wrong (no fucking shit)
- You can achieve the self-help/community through other means

Because that's a pretty weak argument for getting rid of something.

In this case "scientifically wrong" is a con, for reasons intrinsic to what is "scientifically right" - as in: a judgment of worth not based solely on the whim of one, many, or one supreme being. I would hesitate before characterizing it as scientific though.

And no... there have been plenty of other arguments in this thread besides the one currently taking place.

---

At 4/8/09 02:25 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: I'm pretty sure we're still agreeing?

Of course not I'm going to disagree with everything you say.

You're not real, prove it!

---

At 4/8/09 02:30 PM, Brick-top wrote:
Of course not I'm going to disagree with everything you say.

You're not real, prove it!

The power of the human mind can be a scary thing indeed when it is realized in a paranoid light.

But what's paranoia?

Shagg- I believe in everything.

---

At 4/8/09 03:40 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 4/8/09 02:30 PM, Brick-top wrote:
Of course not I'm going to disagree with everything you say.

You're not real, prove it!

The power of the human mind can be a scary thing indeed when it is realized in a paranoid light.

You're not real either. You're just a figment of my imagination and this computer I'm typing on isn't real.

I wonder how insulting it is to question someone's own existence.

---

At 4/8/09 05:02 PM, Brick-top wrote:
You're not real either. You're just a figment of my imagination and this computer I'm typing on isn't real.

I wonder how insulting it is to question someone's own existence.

Is your mind real? Is you thinking it's not real, real?

---

At 4/8/09 07:01 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Is your mind real? Is you thinking it's not real, real?

How dare you question my existence you figment of my imagination.

---

At 4/8/09 07:08 PM, Brick-top wrote:
How dare you question my existence you figment of my imagination.

I get the point, religions don't look at evidence.

But your act also reveals that is far from the only culprit of such schemes.

---

At 4/8/09 07:26 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 4/8/09 07:08 PM, Brick-top wrote:
How dare you question my existence you figment of my imagination.

I get the point, religions don't look at evidence.

How exactly did you get that from what I said? How? Honestly, how the hell did you derive that from my statement?

I question your existence.

You question mine.

I say how dare you and continue questioning your existence.

Do you get it?

---

the islams would hate, the starving ones, until christian feeders and givers of grain arrive, and they most giving, they started that and alcoholics anynomous, among many other things, no atheists here, they just suffer from something called lack of compassion

and when there last moments of life are near, they will attempt to get on their knees and pray

"SORRY GOD FORGIVE ME"

but their judgment will be against their wishes

---

At 4/9/09 03:16 PM, afuckingname wrote: "SORRY GOD FORGIVE ME"

*cough* Bill Gates *cough*

---

only did it to not look greedy

---

At 4/10/09 10:00 AM, afuckingname wrote: only did it to not look greedy

Prove it

---

At 4/9/09 04:52 PM, TheRadicalOne wrote:

At 4/9/09 03:52 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 4/9/09 03:16 PM, afuckingname wrote: "SORRY GOD FORGIVE ME"

*cough* Bill Gates *cough*

I am going to spend forever trying to figure out what you meant right there.

Mr spams-a-lot said this:
until christian feeders and givers of grain arrive, and they most giving,

Bill gates donated 30 billion dollars and opened up his own charity foundation. He is an Atheist. The charity donations and the recession has financially crippled him. the higher you climb the harder you fall is right in this circumstance.

It would have been the largest charity donation in history but Warren Buffett donated 37 billion to Gates's charity and describes himself as an agnostic.

---

At 4/10/09 06:36 PM, Victory wrote: Personal gain by being rewarded with heaven?

Aren't they the same?

Oh wait, I forgot blackmailing with hell.

God: "Do what I say and I'll give you a luxurious reward"

God: "Don't do what I say and I'll give you eternal torture, suffering and unpleasantness"

Bribery and blackmail all in one little book.

---

At 4/10/09 06:00 PM, Brick-top wrote:
until christian feeders and givers of grain arrive, and they most giving,

they equals more than two people, and bill gates isnt a confirmed atheist, its called Corporate social responsibility

---

At 4/10/09 08:45 PM, afuckingname wrote:

At 4/10/09 06:00 PM, Brick-top wrote:
until christian feeders and givers of grain arrive, and they most giving,

they equals more than two people

Who? The Christians?

Well, let's see. Whenever a Christian does charitable work he's using God as a main focus, when an Atheist does it, they're just doing it because....it's charitable. No Heavenly rewards, no people looking at their beliefs they're just doing it because it's the right thing to do. And I participate in it, not much but it's something. Do you donate to charity?

How many Charities do you know run by Christians which aren't Christian based?

and bill gates isnt a confirmed atheist, its called Corporate social responsibility

So he's gone from a man trying to not look greedy to not an Atheist?

Wow, he's trying to not do a lot of stuff.

You're trying to discredit a person to make your original argument seem more valid, nice try. If you don't know what I'm talking about this is what you did:

"Look at these amazing Christians doing all this charity work....wait...an charitable Atheist? No, he's just a dick"

Question about believing in God.

"In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things happen and how they happen. I don't know if there's a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid."

Before you say he's agnostic, Agnosticism and Atheism are on the same plain however Agnostics additionally believe eternal knowledge is impossible, which is something God posses. Agnosticism doesn't automatically mean "I don't know"

"Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very efficient. There's a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning."

He's either an Agnostic, Atheist or perhaps a Deist. But either way you swing it, it still pisses on your idea Christians are "and they most giving,"

Do you know of a Christian Charity which managed to collect 67 Billion US dollars?

With that you could buy North Korea and Costa Rica and still have spare change.

---

With your sign up date, Job title, posts and username, I suspect you're nothing more than a troll.

I'm not getting banned because of you.

---

Christians are forced to be charitable.
They pass a collection plate and if you don't give any money, they look at you all weird and make you feel like a piece of shit.
And MAYBE YOU'LL GO TO HELL, WHO KNOWS?

When I see a Christian ( or a person of any religion ) giving away a dollar, I see a man paying one dollar to get into heaven.

And of course they spend a lot of that money on shit like crazy Pope hats and priceless Cathedrals or Art.

---

At 4/10/09 09:21 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 4/10/09 08:45 PM, afuckingname wrote:

At 4/10/09 06:00 PM, Brick-top wrote:
until christian feeders and givers of grain arrive, and they most giving,

they equals more than two people

Who? The Christians?

Well, let's see. Whenever a Christian does charitable work he's using God as a main focus

which isnt true

How many Charities do you know run by Christians which aren't Christian based?

and bill gates isnt a confirmed atheist, its called Corporate social responsibility

So he's gone from a man trying to not look greedy to not an Atheist?

you claim hes an atheist, he is your example.. i didnt go anywhere

Wow, he's trying to not do a lot of stuff.

"Look at these amazing Christians doing all this charity work....wait...an charitable Atheist? No, he's just a dick"

i didnt say anything about dicks, i said its because of this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_s ocial_responsibility

Question about believing in God.

"In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things happen and how they happen. I don't know if there's a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid."

Before you say he's agnostic, Agnosticism and Atheism are on the same plain however Agnostics additionally believe eternal knowledge is impossible, which is something God posses. Agnosticism doesn't automatically mean "I don't know"

it means im not sure

"Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very efficient. There's a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning."

He's either an Agnostic, Atheist or perhaps a Deist. But either way you swing it, it still pisses on your idea Christians are "and they most giving,"

Do you know of a Christian Charity which managed to collect 67 Billion US dollars?

youre comparing a foundation to a "christian charity", so all the different corporations that are apart of it are all agnostic?

---

Actually, according to an article I recently read by Bill Gates, he refers to corporate responsibility as "creative capitalism".

---

I would like to apologise for not being able to continue this argument further for I had business to attend to. I was on the site but I held back from posting because it would distract me. To clear up an issue noted in the replies: I was referring to the uses of religion with the list.

At 4/6/09 05:44 PM, Brick-top wrote: Hang on; your links suggest Religious people are happier than Atheists.

I knew you were going to pop a few links and shoot yourself in the foot.

If Religion does cause happiness then it is used as emotional support.

Either way I'd adore to see evidence showing Religious beliefs can cause emotional and physical superiority compared to those with no Religious beliefs.

I will concede that it does provide emotional support to those who need it and don't need but the Bible itself is there for support so it only makes sense for it to be emotional support. Emotional crutch is an extreme term to use, I don't require it to the extent that without it I'd become hollow and depressed. And you seem to be against religion making people happy.

I'll see your two and raise you four.

1

1A

2

3

3A

4

Don't you just love numeric links?

Well with intelligence it is obvious that it is more likely that they'll be more intelligent when there are many Christian's who are creationists and the same goes for the Muslim's. There are Christian sects out there dumb enough to burn books in order to keep facts from harming their beliefs instead of accepting them for greater knowledge or perhaps using them to assist the Church. In Muslim countries they ban some content which oppose to their faith, many books include those of the sciences. I've got to admit that the studies are pretty pointless when you are just generalizing every religion together. I class myself as Scientific Christian so where do I go in all this?

As for divorce rates I am not sure what the statistics are for atheists who are married and who chose to be out of wedlock. Without a figure to rival the amount of married Christian's then it makes it pretty unfair really. I couldn't find a comparison for married Atheists and Christian's on the sites.

This information posted by some of the members from the fourth link: Firstly, atheist countries are either rich or communist. Those are the factors that affect crime, not religion. Why did you not draw your analysis against countries which have Sharia law? After all, they have the lowest crime. And also the funny thing is most of the countries named were founded on Christian principles such as the US and Western Europe. Again another source with missing information or information to favour one party over the other on purpose.

lol what?

Yes, I'm using the term 'lol' because there is no other synonym to describe my reaction.

Your society (and mine) have been developed by ever changing laws and regulations by people using their natural desire to preserve the species over a long period of time. You might criticise it greatly however in comparison to nations with no social structure you're living in what can only be described as a Utopia.

Before you say the laws of the Bible are enforced in law you need to establish they were the first in the world to establish these laws and modern society is derived from it.

The laws of the Bible are the basis of our law and we know this for a fact as you said. In Great Britain we have a system called "The Welfare State" it was based on one of Jesus' parables called "The Sheep and Goat" The welfare state does as the parable tells, give money to the poor, give them shelter, visit those in prison, help those who need help and give them free medical attention, this being our health system known as the NHS which is funded by taxes, so the less fortunate can use it.

This is an example of how religion benefits people and is used law for a better world.

What relevance does this have to do with my question?

Too long ago to recall to be honest.

If your life is governed by unchanging rules what's the point if you can't decide for yourself how to live?

The book is used for guidance; of course a 2,000 year old book will have some laws out of date but only a few laws. Most of it still valid today.

Government laws can also govern our lives to a degree, however these are continuously changing.

Of course laws are always changing because people find ways around them or new problems arise. Something we'd always have to deal with as man.

1. Friendship

This can be done by other means.

Of course but it still a means never the less.

2. Spiritual Growth

Which inhibits criticism.

Elaborate

3. Mental Health

And Atheism has been shown to cause less crime, less divorces, higher intelligence etc.

Facts I just disputed

4. Physical Health

ABC and the Telegraph forgot to mention this can ONLY happen during meditation, study and prayer. Just believing in God wont inherently make you happier or healthier. There are ample alternatives or meditation.

I was referring to practicing Christian's, by saying you believe and not doing anything about it doesn't really have many benefits unless you seek some answers in your faith.

I'd also like to add 90% of those conducted in the study were Christian while it's only 78.5% in the general population

Well then, new surveys must be done in order to present fairness. Just like your surveys.

5.Community Religion

Once again, this can be done by alternative means. There is even an Atheist club thread on Newgrounds.

It is easy to make a community and this is one that benefits billions. And for the Atheist club I'd imagine there are a few good minds in there and the rest are just being sheep.

6. Creative Expression

Once again and again, artistry can be performed through alternative means.

Vincent Van Gogh
"I can very well do without God both in my life and in my painting, but I cannot, suffering as I am, do without something which is greater than I am, which is my life, the power to create."

Look at Leonardo Davinci's work for some good religiously inspired art

7. A Break

There are a MASSIVE amount of alternatives for this. For me, I like reading.

Yeah many are available and this is one of them but you know whatever floats your boat. I mean someone could like video games and someone else could like studying Bible.

8. Consoling

Appeal to emotion. Read above because I'm sick of saying there are alternatives.

And I could say how you love bumming the word emotion

9. Strength

Emotional crutch

Argued against this already

10.

Conjecture. By the way, in that prisoner percentage link if you dare try to say they converted while

in prison I'd hate to tell you, the statistics were taken as they went in.

Look up Myra Hindley, very famous case.

---

Pugberto, I'll reply to your post later.

At 4/10/09 10:03 PM, afuckingname wrote: which isnt true

Considering you didn't bother to answer my question which is right below this piece of text.

How many Charities do you know run by Christians which aren't Christian based?

and bill gates isnt a confirmed atheist, its called Corporate social responsibility

So he's gone from a man trying to not look greedy to not an Atheist?

you claim hes an atheist, he is your example.. i didnt go anywhere

You claim he's doing it not to look greedy.

Wow, he's trying to not do a lot of stuff.

"Look at these amazing Christians doing all this charity work....wait...an charitable Atheist? No, he's just a dick"

i didnt say anything about dicks, i said its because of this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_s ocial_responsibility

Patton3 replied before I did saying this:
Actually, according to an article I recently read by Bill Gates, he refers to corporate responsibility as "creative capitalism".

Question about believing in God.

"In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things happen and how they happen. I don't know if there's a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid."

Before you say he's agnostic, Agnosticism and Atheism are on the same plain however Agnostics additionally believe eternal knowledge is impossible, which is something God posses. Agnosticism doesn't automatically mean "I don't know"

it means im not sure

Good for you.

"Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very efficient. There's a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning."

He's either an Agnostic, Atheist or perhaps a Deist. But either way you swing it, it still pisses on your idea Christians are "and they most giving,"

Do you know of a Christian Charity which managed to collect 67 Billion US dollars?

youre comparing a foundation to a "christian charity", so all the different corporations that are apart of it are all agnostic?

Did I say that? No. The 67 Billion comes from Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. We're arguing Bill's beliefs and I've already stated Warrens.

---

Patton3 replied before I did saying this:

Actually, according to an article I recently read by Bill Gates, he refers to corporate responsibility as "creative capitalism".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_and_Me linda_Gates_Foundation#Criticism

Good for you.

hes not an atheist, there are lot of agnostics who hate atheists, they arent in the same group

youre comparing a foundation to a "christian charity", so all the different corporations that are apart of it are all agnostic?

Did I say that? No. The 67 Billion comes from Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. We're arguing Bill's beliefs and I've already stated Warrens.

so now youre comparing two people with organization that arent completey atheist, to a 'christian charity', theyre both not based on their beliefs

youd have to find an uncited quote for william buffet for not acting on corporate social responsibility

and im not an example, because i dont adhere to any religion

---

afuckingname I'll respond to your post later. It's Pug's turn.

At 4/10/09 11:07 PM, Pugberto wrote: I will concede that it does provide emotional support to those who need it and don't need but the Bible itself is there for support so it only makes sense for it to be emotional support. Emotional crutch is an extreme term to use, I don't require it to the extent that without it I'd become hollow and depressed. And you seem to be against religion making people happy.

Of course I'm against it. It offers unproven promises and makes assertions without backing them up.

Religion is a 'feel good factor' designed to sucker people in with bribery, blackmail and tactics used by cult leaders.

Bribery: "Do this, that and you'll get into eternal paradise, happy and luxuries"

Blackmail: "Don't do this, that and you'll get into eternal torture, punishment and suffering"

That is of course this Religion has a heaven and hell scenario.

The cult tactic is used by telling people they've sinned, they're inherently evil and the only way to make themselves good is by following a Religion.

Well with intelligence it is obvious that it is more likely that they'll be more intelligent when there are many Christian's who are creationists and the same goes for the Muslim's.

Does this study indicate Religion is caused by ignorance?

Considering what the article says "high intelligence produced an extremely high likelihood of the rejection of religious faith."

As for divorce rates I am not sure what the statistics are for atheists who are married and who chose to be out of wedlock. Without a figure to rival the amount of married Christian's then it makes it pretty unfair really. I couldn't find a comparison for married Atheists and Christian's on the sites.

If they purposefully or even accidentally used more Christians than Atheists the study would've been thrown out. The article says it's been examined and if there was an issue similar to what you're stating they'd have their balls cut off.

The study also shows in the Bible Belt which has the largest amount of evangelical Christians. Coincidence?

This information posted by some of the members from the fourth link: Firstly, atheist countries are either rich or communist.

Read it again: " Comparing 18 prosperous democracies from the U.S. to New Zealand"

As for being rich, I'm sure you know what prosperous means. They're ALL rich.

Those are the factors that affect crime, not religion. Why did you not draw your analysis against countries which have Sharia law? After all, they have the lowest crime.

No, you just didn't read it.

And also the funny thing is most of the countries named were founded on Christian principles such as the US and Western Europe. Again another source with missing information or information to favour one party over the other on purpose.

Treaty of Tripoli.
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion

Societies were already established in many countries of Europe long before Christianity was introduced.

The laws of the Bible are the basis of our law and we know this for a fact as you said.

Two words: Prove it.

PROVE to me the laws we have NOW were derived from the Bible and PROVE the laws of the Bible were the first to be implemented.

In Great Britain we have a system called "The Welfare State" it was based on one of Jesus' parables called "The Sheep and Goat" The welfare state does as the parable tells, give money to the poor, give them shelter, visit those in prison, help those who need help and give them free medical attention, this being our health system known as the NHS which is funded by taxes, so the less fortunate can use it.

If Jesus said it, I'm sure you can offer quotes or evidence for it. But before you do I'm suspecting you've just bastardised scripture to make it fit.

This is an example of how religion benefits people and is used law for a better world.

Observational selection fallacy.

Too long ago to recall to be honest.

Then read the previous posts.

The book is used for guidance; of course a 2,000 year old book will have some laws out of date but only a few laws. Most of it still valid today.

Cherry picking. If God is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent he'd see this coming. Or you're just not following them because society has more modern and moral laws than an archaic book.

Of course laws are always changing because people find ways around them or new problems arise. Something we'd always have to deal with as man.

But Biblical laws never change. Unless you want to rewrite the Bible.

1. Friendship

This can be done by other means.

Of course but it still a means never the less.

Read my question:
"Name me one beneficial thing Religious people can do which cannot be achieved through other means."

2. Spiritual Growth

Which inhibits criticism.

Elaborate

If all this does is strengthen your beliefs then you're not being subjected to criticism because if everyone in a group has the same beliefs no one is going to criticise it.

3. Mental Health

And Atheism has been shown to cause less crime, less divorces, higher intelligence etc.

Facts I just disputed

If they're facts they can't be disputed because they're factual. You said facts, I didn't. And you've already read my reply.

I was referring to practicing Christian's, by saying you believe and not doing anything about it doesn't really have many benefits unless you seek some answers in your faith.

You never said practising Christians. You said 'religious beliefs'

Well then, new surveys must be done in order to present fairness. Just like your surveys.

Not really since you did a piss poor job arguing them while I actually examined your study and the persons performing it.

It is easy to make a community and this is one that benefits billions.

You are assuming it's benefiting billions rather than saying some.

And for the Atheist club I'd imagine there are a few good minds in there and the rest are just being sheep.

It's not exactly hard to check.

Look at Leonardo Davinci's work for some good religiously inspired art

Read the question and his beliefs are still being disputed.

Yeah many are available and this is one of them but you know whatever floats your boat. I mean someone could like video games and someone else could like studying Bible.

Then this is nothing special or unique.

And I could say how you love bumming the word emotion

And finding logical fallacies in your posts which you don't bother to check.

Argued against this already

All you said was it's "an extreme term to use" then you pulled some anecdotal dog shit.

Look up Myra Hindley, very famous case.

And this has relevance? No, you cannot dispute the correlation between non-believers in prison and the ones in the general population. The general population has a much higher level than those in prison which doesn't fit if Religion is supposed to be morally/ethically superior.

---

At 4/11/09 04:00 PM, afuckingname wrote:

Patton3 replied before I did saying this:

Actually, according to an article I recently read by Bill Gates, he refers to corporate responsibility as "creative capitalism".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_and_Me linda_Gates_Foundation#Criticism

Gates signed a deal with African countries which locked out other charity organisations which doesn't makes sense since he's the largest provider.

In countries where they don't have an exclusive arrangements reports show that the Gates Foundation has been giving away its charity for free. "They just swoop in and give it away for free," said Coburn. "It's very hard for us to compete with that."

Bill Gates said that his organization wasn't involved in anti-competitive practices, and that accusations that medicines given away by his Foundation won't work with other competing medicines are "baseless."

And let's not forget it's still under investigation, you have just committed an argument from adverse consequences.

Good for you.

hes not an atheist, there are lot of agnostics who hate atheists, they arent in the same group

So just because some Agnostics hate Atheists that inherently means they're totally different?

Wow, great logic.

No, they're the same, the only difference is Agnostics believe eternal knowledge is impossible. What has God got? Eternal knowledge. LOOK IT UP.

youre comparing a foundation to a "christian charity", so all the different corporations that are apart of it are all agnostic?

Did I say that? No. The 67 Billion comes from Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. We're arguing Bill's beliefs and I've already stated Warrens.

so now youre comparing two people with organization that arent completey atheist, to a 'christian charity', theyre both not based on their beliefs

I already admitted the latter the Agnostic, we're arguing about whether or not Gates is an Atheist and I've already told you Atheism and Agnosticism are virtually the same.

youd have to find an uncited quote for william buffet for not acting on corporate social responsibility

"This has been coming for 50 years," Mr Buffett said. "There's never really been any other plan in terms of where the money should go."

and im not an example, because i dont adhere to any religion

---

At 4/10/09 09:29 PM, poxpower wrote:
And of course they spend a lot of that money on shit like crazy Pope hats and priceless Cathedrals or Art.

Fast food, movies, sports cars. You criticize the pageantry of one enterprise, you question the ethics of all of them. Accept this do you?