That left me pretty emotionally drained. That is what the words armageddon, tempest, grieving, awestruck, dumbfounded, terror, insanity, mayhem, nature, and of course death. Nature can be altruistically beautiful; like our own galaxy rising at night.

But, we know that if we were to have the Sun venture too close...what occurs there would make this tidal wave pale in any sort of rational thought, comparison, and expression.

Mortality.

>> ^Payback:

>> ^Duckman33:
Professional Wrestling hasn't presented itself as real for a couple decades now. Something a lot of you seem to forget. Remember it's called World Wrestling Entertainment.

It's called World Wrestling Entertainment because the World Wildlife Fund sucessfully sued their asses back in 2000. They didn't change it for any altruistic "truthy" ideals.


Seriously? It's been well known for years it's not real, they haven't pretended for years it's not real, and you are going to continue down this path? <sigh> Only a moron would think it was real, and only a moron would continue to call FAKE every time they see a clip from it.

>> ^Duckman33:

Professional Wrestling hasn't presented itself as real for a couple decades now. Something a lot of you seem to forget. Remember it's called World Wrestling Entertainment.


It's called World Wrestling Entertainment because the World Wildlife Fund sucessfully sued their asses back in 2000. They didn't change it for any altruistic "truthy" ideals.

@dystopianfuturetoday

I disagree. For one, I think most people who feel they have a career and not just a job to get by are passionate about what they do, perhaps not initially but certainly over time as they become experienced. They might not be educating future generations, but they're contributing to society in their own way.

I honestly can't figure out how paying good teachers more cheapens anything. I certainly can't see how it would discourage them from teaching in the first place. I can definitely imagine though that there are plenty of capable, educated and willing would-be teachers who are simply not happy with a teacher's salary. Look at the amount of people who come back from the private sector to teach at university.

And the fact of the matter is, there already is merit pay in teaching. Principals and managerial level positions get paid way more. Why hasn't this destroyed the fabric of educational society?

Education for the most part is very compartmentalized and I would argue very measurable. Say you teach a unit in maths for a whole year. You have massive control over direction for that period. Yes, you depend on cooperation from prior year levels, and you may depend on subjects that tie into yours (physics perhaps) or vice versa. But you have huge amounts of autonomy throughout that year, and a huge potential to individual shape outcomes.

You oversimplify the rest of the private sector. Take banks, arguably the most purely money driven. At the insitutional level have a front end staff that deals directly with clients and wants to maximise profitable deals. Typically, a separate team counter-balances them on credit risk, and another on market risk (interest/exchange risk). In combination, the goal attained is not simply blunt returns, it's risk weighed outcomes, which can only be achieved through cooperation because of mutually competing objectives.

I'm just not seeing how if well organised, schools can't be the same. Well structured, the Coke and Pepsi in your examples would be schools. Somehow both these corporations have managed to work together as a team despite most employees chasing wage rises essentially at the expense of the other, right?

If teachers are so driven and personally motivated as you say, why is it then so few are willing to go to under performing schools to raise their standards? After all, if they were so intrinsically altruistic, that would be the first place to start, no? Teaching in the 'burbs to upper middle class kids with parents who have already motivated them to succeed regardless of whether the teacher is any good isn't exactly hard right? I find it difficult to see how you can deny here that incentives would help.

I think we have different paradigms on education. Yes, great schools should be full of engaging extracurricular activities to choose from and develop students as a person not just as a capable cog in the working machine economy. But the great schools in the US, over here in Australia are already great. The issue is the ones who can't provide a basic education. The focus here doesn't need to be wishy washy but on structured targets achieved in the best way they can. There should be expected basic standards of knowledge to be reached and if progress is consistently not being made towards them, there should be consequences.

Again, my experience has been that good exams, even the internationally standardised exams I took at the end of high school required critical thinking. Bad exam design is the problem.

You make it sound like people in the private sector carry around a jail ball weight of mistrust and fear around with them everywhere they go. People spend upwards of 8 hours a day in a skilled position generally because they enjoy what they do. They want to do well, and the pay reward is ultimately ancillary and a reinforcing look for the will to do well that they had in the first place.

As for the last comment, again we philosophically disagree but I would say markets didn't. In the US at least, poor regulation and the domination of policy direction by collective interests (corporate and union) through poor campaign financing caused the recent mess and much of what continues. Take a look at Australia as an example, and you will see a very different story. None of our banks got in trouble much because of good regulation, interest groups do not dominate elections and our economy never went into recession.

Telly, check out the site rules. You aren't supposed to submit your own stuff. You obviously aren't here to hawk a product or make money off of the site and your video is altruistic, so hopefully other members will be forgiving. You should * discard this video and ask another member to submit it for you.

>> ^Djevel:

When entering into the USAF back in the mid-90's, I was advised not to put down my denomination as Atheist. The SSgt wouldn't go into details as to why, other than if I happened to be in a life threatening situation with others, it may be impressed upon those of religious persuasion to save their brethren before making the attempt for me. It would be easier for "everyone" if I just put "non-denominational" instead. Throughout basic training and tech school, I also had the luxury of additional detail (labor) because I wasn't comfortable attending church services. Later, as I gained rank, it was also impressed upon me that to further my career, organizations, such as Toastmasters, would be enthusiastically encouraged from my leadership chain.
If things have changed since then, fantastic, but I was never given the impression that the armed forces were the enlightenment of civilization in regards to secularism, "all walks of life" withstanding.


And for @Gamble... I know your movies like "Full Metal Jacket" does exactly what's being described, but have you guys (or anyone in the armed services) ever seen/had/heard a Atheist Sergeant ? It seems to me that besides on the death bed and when you are in a "peaceful" defensive setup that only then would religion (and only then) be allowed to function full strength.

It seems incredibly counter-intuitive to have instilled or given religious Christians (the ability to countermand--without a court-marshal & on-site kick to the groin and punch in the face--[ I know they don't have the ability--they just have people that are willing to be unscrupulous for them to cover anything up--how very Christian of... yadda, yadda, yadda...]), to ever (I know the point was that he was a crappy Sergeant, but they're are many like him ; but this one example is mine ) have a Sergeant teach at basic and later on for specialists (marines/rangers/etc...) that creates a not only a physical division within the ranks, but a mental one.

If actually acted upon or even used in the normal functions of combat you put: the mission, the soldiers, civilians, allies, and more like completely missing/noticing any opportunities to get the enemy. Tactics and doing your job should always be priority number one. If religion is in any of these top priorities, except for morality (as it is altruistically linked to religion and life, even Atheists; morality is being linked more and more as a intrinsic property of our evolution and all mammals in general; even bee colonies work together "through Christ" though?...), but morality is a near fully physical psychological manifestation due to instincts and evolution (and religion; especially when you fear dying and going to a lake of fire; this could be considered a "psychotic" attribute, especially when it concerns *this, present, reality*).

As state and religion are compelled to stay apart due to the constitution and how it relates the two and law in the First Amendment; so should religion and military as they have the same correlated negative qualities as what comes from not following the First Amendment. (Yes I know it never says it, but: Thomas Jefferson did, the Supreme Court has used it many time (making it essentially a law, regardless), and the First Amendment if understood correctly (look at the Supreme Court cases involved and how they interpreted it) creates a literal gap between the State (the State can't make a law concerning Religion, whatsoever) and Religion ( Religion like the State must never become entwined in any fashion with the State; if it does it isn't considered a Religion by the State and loses all it's protections, like the notion of organization tax exemption, which unlike a typical organization can make money [this is why so many people hate Scientology as it's literally at the line that shouldn't be crossed and is considered a tax haven by many]).

Only more lives will be at risk. Giving yourself a moral boost using religion can be done silently; I know I used to be heavily religious.
_{Keep your mind at task; this is life and death. It's also not just your life on the line.}
/sorry ran a bit longer than intended

Agreed, but religion is a special consideration because it claims to know of a divine, metaphysical truth of enormous importance. Being an atheist, I've no issue with people subscribing to religion - not at all. I take issue with religion being imposed on children, inserted into the wrong canals of education and being so significantly involved in politics and government.

You've just said, in so many words, that you have no problems with religion, as long as it's invisible and has no effect on society. Children are incapable of making rational, informed decisions (same with a lot of "adults"). While Bertrand Rusell is correct that children's religious beliefs is installed at the mother's knee, there's not a better way. The State has no morality.

Like Karl Marx said, religion is a drug. But what I would add is that instead of being opium, it's a mild performance enhancing drug. At least that's what religious people think. But it's simply a placebo: religious people think that by believing in god they are protected/doing good/gaining eternal afterlife/etc. and so they feel better. Classic self-fulfilling prophecy type of thing. The problem of course is that this changes their mental balance, and if something comes that challenge their world view they will get angry, like the addict you try to reason with. If something happens to make their religious worldview crumble, they get depressed, i.e. withdrawal syndrome.

You've also just described liberalism. Liberals believe they are doing only good and that liberalism is altruistic. Who's going to argue against caring for the poor? But when the latest social program not only fails to reduce an evil but instead legitimizes and expands it, it's depressing. It has to be the fault of The Other. It's the Republican/Devils' fault--or lack of money--when the real answer is flawed human nature.

On the other hand atheists are always on neutral. If new scientific evidence challenge their worldview, they'll just say "well, my experience of the world is the same, but my understanding of that experience must change". This is exactly to the contrary of the religious, who always thinks that his experience of the world itself is at stake. Religious people think their experience of the world includes a god, when in fact only their understanding of the world - gotten from the Bible or whatever source of authority - includes a god to explain Everything Else. This is why, I think, the theological debate hasn't advanced in two thousand years: religious types try to prove or disprove the experience of a god - which with the way they usually define god is impossible either way - whereas scientific types say with Laplace that a god is a superfluous hypothesis in the understanding of the experience we have of the world.

Atheism is not neutral. It is a declaration that there are no deities and no supernatural influences, because they have never been scientifically proven. Yes, the religious are 'dependent' on their God/s, but the idea that atheists are Vulcan geniuses is equally absurd. Man remains a vicious animal with only a thin veneer of reason. If a stranger struck your child for no reason, rare is the fellow who would stop and say, "This stranger is obviously mentally unbalanced or just having a bad day, that's why he did that." The other 999 out of a thousand would have to be restrained to keep from killing the SOB.

So atheists are more mentally stable and view the world and our experience of it in a more reasonable, detached manner. These, I think, are two things needed for humankind to not destroy itself with its own technological marvels. With this in min, it is no wonder that fundamentalists think global warming and weapons of mass destruction are "necessary" : they think the world is ok as it is and all is well with their god's plan, whereas they must also protect themselves against the guys that do not believe in their own god (the atheist commies and the islamic terrorists).

There has never been a successful State sans religion. Remove God and the State becomes god, and the results of that are never good. Put another way, "As long as there is poverty, there will be gods."

>> ^blankfist:

^Yes, because a belief in an omnipotent god is exactly the same thing as belief in individuals interacting without coercion.
You forgot one: Democrats pray to an intelligently designed, centrally planned society.


Let me see if what I'm inferring about you from your sarcastic post is correct:

Your arguments against, what I think is pretty much socialism, don't have to do with not wanting to subsidize your dying neighbors cancer treatments, or believing big business should run wild and free, or an appreciation for the American dream wherein any man has the, albeit statistically irrelevant, chance to become a billionaire.

No, your problem with the idea of a strong, controlling, altruistic government that bends over backwards to improve the lives of it's citizenry, is that it's simply impossible.

You would insist that humans are too savage, animalistic and competitive for this kind of cooperation to last?

It's probably the best argument against wasting our time trying.

Meh, I dunno. I think we'll get there someday. I mean, we're already so much less savage than even 500 years ago.

P.S. I don't mean to put words in anyone's mouths. DFT, NetRunner are socialists, yes? blankfist is the opposite, which is a capitalist? It's funny, I think I've heard the term socialist used as an insult before. As in, you bastard socialist. Sup wit' dat?

Maybe if we would ALL grow up and face our histories we could move forward with this fucking word and maybe 50-100 years from now the word could go back to meaning what it originally meant. Ignorant. That's what the word originally meant.

The reason why the word is offensive to black people is one of two reasons:

A) As a black person, they have been conditioned to be offended by the word. Literally. You think Lebron James was born knowing what nigger meant? No. He was told, hey that's a racial slur and it should -REALLY- fucking bother you to hear it, or

B) They knew family members who were slaves and that's shameful to them and the n-word reminds them that their entire race was enslaved a short time ago.

That's the thing. It's embarrassing and shameful to think that your race was enslaved. But tbh, it's also pretty fucking embarrassing and shameful to think that my great, or great great grandfather might've owned slaves and seen nothing wrong with that.

Well too fucking bad. As much as it might be uncomfortable, we need to face our histories. The altruistic approach, I think, would be to move forward with the word and that's not going to happen if we play make-believe and instead use "The N-Word".

So, I guess 4chan is on the right path. If everyone used the word nigger like 4chan does, in no time at all the word would be as offensive as calling someone a dumbass or a clown or a douche. Black people need to relinquish the word and realize they're not niggers.

@SDGundamX

I hope I've done the tag properly. I prefer notifications to be set to 'off' because I get enough junkmail from the other bazillion websites I'm registered to as it is, so yeah I don't pay much attention to that stuff.

Anyway, on to your reply!

Speaking of assumptions...

Oh boy! Here we go!

...I’m noticing that you tend to make a lot of them. You assumed, for instance, that I was a Christian. You assumed that I was trying to defend a particular religion or religious practice.

Yes, I did, as I've already admitted. It was a fine display of all the common symptoms of a religious apologist/troll, touting all the usual old and tired canards I've heard repeated ad nauseum; unjustified and arrogantly pronounced assertions with no evidence to ground them to reality, a blatant false equivocation, and flat out wrong characterizations of Hitchens et al's position. I'm genuinely sorry I had you falsely pegged but when it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck...well, y'know. In other words, you probably could have done a better job of elucidating and then justifying your opinion.

You assumed (and continue to assume) that I am calling Hitchens and the rest fundamentalists. I am not. I could not. Atheism by its very definition cannot be “fundamentalist” as this article explains. What I said was:

I find it ironic that those such as Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris, in their zeal to exterminate religion, have become such zealots unwilling to admit evidence contrary to their position that they now rival the fundamentalists they profess to be fighting against.

Your words are right there above mine. They are zealots that rival the fundamentalists they are opposed to, in their zeal to exterminate (I call bullshit on this, they seek to marginalize it not destroy it) religion. On what planet is this not a false equivocation? On what planet am I to not take you at your word? You still haven't provided evidence for this or the other claim that they even wish to exterminate religion, as well. Because they don't. If you don't stand by your wording then retract it. You really haven't read anything from them other than what you have learned from secondary, tertiary sources, have you?



...that they refuse to revise their absolutist statements about religion being the cause of evil or the spreading hatred even when faced with evidence of religion instead bringing good into the world (on the blog—the story of Hitchens and the taxi driver who went to great lengths to return Hitchens’ lost wallet because the driver’s religion demanded he do so).

This evidence exists in heaps and bounds—I would guess (though I don’t know for sure, granted) in equal amounts to the evidence that religion spreads hatred. Regardless of the amount, in the face of the fact that such evidence exists at all, Hitchens’ previous statement (the one made in this clip about religion being the primary cause of hatred) becomes wholly untenable.


Are you seriously attributing the fact that moral people can exist within the institution of a religion and still be moral, to the religion itself? Could you name a single decent thing a religious person can do that a non-religious person couldn't? What kind of morality do you think preceded the origins of the Muslim cab driver's religion? The exact same morality that has always existed between humans and other humans on some level, that of mutual altruistic behavior, the "golden rule" and that the Abrahamic religion has co-opted into the rest of their vile ideology. You have your causes and effects here reversed, human morality is what it is in spite of religion, and to invoke religion where its not even a necessary requirement is to trivialize the very thing that enabled homo sapiens, as inherently social animals, to get to where we are today in this technological age without destroying ourselves in the process.


In regards to the so-called ad hom: I feel this applies to your post because you appear to be dismissing my argument before even considering it since you start off suspecting I don’t think clearly.

Well, you are wrong. I obviously read your whole reply before I responded. What you feel is irrelevant. Did you just read that one line and then ignore everything else I said? I mentioned the "not thinking clearly thing" purely as an aside, I then went on to address your points. Ad hom doesn't apply, sorry. It would've if that was all I supplied as the basis of my argument; I didn't say "You do not think clearly, therefore you are wrong". Ad hominem isn't what you wish it to be so stop abusing the term.

This brings us back to the Gnu Atheist’s confrontational tactics—in that link you gave me, the writer explicitly endorses being rude. I’m not here to tell you it isn’t a valid tactic—it most certainly is.


Being unflinchingly truthful and not kowtowing to the religious lies/claptrap and ridiculing those whose faith is threatened (who would have no qualms about being as rude and demeaning as possible in telling me so) by my sole existence is rude now. You should tell those uppity gays to be more polite and not stand up for equal treatment, in whatever way they choose as long as its non-violent/within the boundaries of the law, maybe their oppressors would stand down. No, confrontation is the answer if you want to change speak out and "business as usual". I consider lies to be harmful and rude and demeaning to an individual deserving of being treated like an adult in the marketplace of ideas, even the most comfortably benign, fluffy touchie-feelie ones.


I’m here to question it’s efficacy.

It was already pretty clear to me but thanks. It looked to me like you had already decided. You may NOW be appearing to question that, but again, what you may have meant certainly isn't what you wrote and to expect others to be able to know is dickish. I agree it's a good question still but haven't provided evidence to show its efficacy. So let's refrain from the assumptions. All I know is it wasn't some accommodationist, overly polite wank, unwilling to get his hands dirty to enlighten me, that stirred the feelings I've secretly held for so many years about my existence and God, it was someone who was NOT afraid of confrontation in surgically disillusioning my cherished notions of reality, of showing just how ridiculously absurd the whole thing is. It is a matter of ethics to value truth more than(key words) some default arbitrarily designated level of respect.

So, what I was trying to say in my original post is that it annoys me that Hitchens and the rest continue onward with their blanket absolutist statements despite the fact that there exists evidence to the contrary.

Saying religion, of all kinds, is the primary (meaning secondary and tertiary factors also contribute but don't even approach the monopoly religion has on spreading misery, violence, and hatred) isn't really a controversial statement at all to me. History tells us much. Can you think of any other more divisive human social construct that has caused more strife throughout history? Shall we play the game of "add up the bodies"? It boggles the mind to think of where humanity might be right now if not for the Dark Ages.

For instance, just because some people use communism to establish totalitarian regimes, doesn’t make communism evil.

Communism is as much an ideology based on fantasy as religion. In so far as it is not based on evidence and reason and being willfully enforced/propagated, it is harmful.

So, my question for you is, is being rude and disrespectful to people an effective arguing technique? Let’s be clear, I am not saying we need to respect other people’s ideas.


It certainly can be effective. I have no real evidence besides anecdotes and the correlative fact that religious membership levels in the US/Britain have been slowly declining since around the time the Gnu Atheists began to speak out and be more prominently featured in the media/Internets in general. The level of ridicule should be in proportion to the level of bat-shit insanity of the beliefs held. No one is championing a one-size-fits-all approach.

To tie all this together, let’s talk about one last assumption you made. You assumed I didn’t want to reply to your questions because I was trying to dodge the issue. I’d like us to be clear on my true reasons for not replying (so you won’t have to assume anymore).

I (like you, I imagine) happen to be a very busy person. I work full-time and put in a lot of unpaid overtime. I also have a beautiful family and good friends that I want to spend my free time with. This limits the amount of time I can spend on the Internet. So I have to choose when and how to respond to posts wisely.

Fair enough, I wouldn't accuse someone of dodging for being busy. I do not expect replies either, I hold you to nothing except your own words. I accused you of dodging because, when asked, you didn't provide much in the way of evidence to justify your assertions or a flat-out retraction. I could say this in any number of polite ways, you simply didn't.

You, from the very start of your post, set out to pick a fight.

Guilty as charged!

You made completely unfounded assumptions and then attacked an imaginary opponent that you mistook for me.

I made the assumption you were religious and was wrong, the rest still stands. You don't want others to take your word for it? Then add some more words! What you may have "meant" is not what I got pissed off at and responded to, understand this already.

Why should I spend it defending or searching the Internet for proof for an argument I never actually made (the “reality/validity” of Christianity; the fundamentalism of atheists like Hitchens)? Why should I try to reason with someone who from the very outset displays such misguided behavior?

That's my whole point! You shouldn't have said anything at all if you didn't have anything truthful to say in the first place. You really have no fucking clue what you're talking about when you talk about them and you rightly got called on it. I already addressed where I made any assumptions about you, the rest is through your own doing. You have NOT shown that they rival those fundamentalists they oppose, you have NOT shown that they wish to eradicate religion, you haven't even shown how they are zealots. You are being incredibly dishonest to the point of absurdity!


Thanks for reading this to the end. As a footnote, here is a link to a discussion on that web site you gave me that I found very interesting. Most of all, I found JoiletJake’s comments interesting—see posts #139 and #146 in particular, as I believe they are similar to my views on religion.


I've already read them and just re-read. Joilet comes off as incredibly honest, humble considering his position, and its pretty plain to see that the response he got, while initially bumpy, gradually warmed up to him as he elaborated and made it well known he is relying solely on his personal feeling in the matter and not trying to assert an attribution of those feelings onto actual reality. I think its great your attitude aligns with his, it may not be logically consistent but at least it's pretty harmless on the whole. Notice he wasn't tossing out baseless assertions, straw manning, or falsely equivocating.

I'd really enjoy it if you were to paste/copy what you said on Pharyngula and see how different the reaction would be. Such tasty schadenfreude! My guess is you would be entertainingly dismantled, rudely perhaps, but dismantled nonetheless. Welcome to the Internets.

I really have no interest in continuing this conversation, as lovely and downright tedious as it has been. I am done responding the minutiae of your several attempts at special pleading. Think whatever you want about the Gnu Atheists, whatever keeps the cognitive dissonance at bay.

Yogi was fairly calm and collected in all his statements, even after GenjiKilpatrick called him a "sick fuck" and said he was worse than an animal abuser. And you say yogi is flailing and frothing like a toddler? I don't entirely agree with his viewpoint, though he has some valid points, but he's not the one who needs a timeout.

I disagree. Perhaps I should have kept from responding to his reaction after Genji's post, but you can't claim that Yogi was being calm and collected in light of his response. You just can't. I'm not going to quote it because I trust that you've read it already, but he blasted anti-CoS as intellectually invalid by comparison to 9/11 conspiracies, and then blasted GenjiKilpatrick, claiming that he would amount to nothing altruistically, in a clear attempt to degrade his opponent. Both of these points stem from an underlying disdain for those who oppose his proposition, and a desire to reduce the potency of both the arguments and one of the people making them.

That's not calm and collected, that's common and seedy. It happens too much, and I see it too often, in all kinds of debates. I'm sorry, but I don't think it's acceptable for you to defend tactics like that.

It's all very well to infiltrate, plant a comment and exfiltrate, but if you want to be involved, be involved. Don't do a drive-by assessment and leave it hanging in the troposphere.

To that end, a question : which points of his are valid ones, that still endure after being responded to?

Edit : I done broked the comment system. I hope you'll be alright with italics.

I'd also like to add that I perceived the "calm and collected" statement, as well as the idea that someone here needs to take a time-out, as a derision of my commitment to the argument, as if I need to sit down and take a chill pill. Well, I'll not apologize for my passion on this issue and I'll have no-one else apologize on my behalf. I expect that my opposition can suffer the intensity of a proper argument. The thrashing and flailing comment was a low-point, I confess. None of the rest of it has received any response whatsoever.

>> ^gwiz665:

There are idiots in all sectors.

Yes, but only in the public sector do you see people take things like this and say "and this is the reason all government is incapable of doing anything right".

Just imagine if we turned the tables around on that -- I just proved that all of capitalism is hopelessly inefficient and is incapable of doing anything right.

Not only that, but it's clearly driving us down the road to serfdom as well.

Like dag said, the right answer is for me to act like an altruistic collectivist and give the guy a break (and BTW, I did), but then that's just like socialism, because I'm depriving him of the learning experience that goes with failure to carry out your responsibilities in life...

@dystopianfuturetoday, first, the reason big corporations thrive in a "wallet democracy" is because of a couple different factors, but mainly A) a lack of consumer knowledge or understanding where their money goes and B) the market has a lot less competition thanks to regulations that stifle small business.

Secondly, you can't stop people from buying sweatshop goods in a free market except by persuasion. This is part where you say "so we have to leave it up to human nature? Then we're all screwed! The sky is falling!" Not true. The majority of people want to coexist and do the right thing. Cynics like yourself may think otherwise, but I'd ask to give it some more thought.

Think of it this way: America has the most people jailed in the entire world with 1% of the population! At least half of them are locked up for victimless crimes, so that means roughly 1 in every 200 people don't want to coexist. That's not bad. Everyone else seems to know that hurting other people and stealing from other people and generally breaking the law is a bad thing. This is a good sign.

Then factor in how we're biologically communal creatures who instinctually have a tribal desire to coexist with one another. Then factor in the altruistic gene that gives people physiological pleasure for doing good while depressing them when they do something bad. I say the majority of people are capable of doing the right thing.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Though I searched the world so broad - though I flew and ran
I never found the atheist that taught to be a better man.
Though I plumbed every house and street and knocked on every door
I never met found the agnost who said that I must help the poor.



You must have been looking in a very religious neighbourhood, because all I can say is that most of the non-believers I know are just as, or more so, altruistic as any religious person I know. The difference is perhaps that they dont brag so loudly and judge so confidently and feel themselves so morally superior as certain religious cults do. Take, for instance the largest cult in the world, the Catholic Church, For all their preaching about selflessness, sacrifice, guilt and blah,blah blah, when it comes right down to it, they'll happily protect kiddy fuckers and sacrifice children to protect their cult. So take your religious moral superiority and shove it.

http://www.thinkatheist.com/notes/Secular_charities
http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Charities
http://www.secularstudents.org/node/2968

Chivalry is not altruistic...it's to get laid. Treat it as such. If you don't give a f*ck about a broad, who cares, she has just as much opportunity as you do, you don't have to do shit for her. If you want to impress a girl that would like a refined gentleman, then open the fucking door. Point is, be smarter than her...