Socialism - An Evil Concept

[oldbetang]

The Ten Greatest Philanthropists of All Time

 

[clirus]

jgarden quote

In marked contrast to "clirus' " stated position on charity, Gates and Buffett have never limited their generosity just to those individuals who share their atheistic beliefs.

The same can be said for a host of other atheists who are philanthropists including George Soros, Ted Turner, Andrew Carnegie, Robert W. Wilson, Richard Dawkins and Norman Ernest Borlaug.

Response

The people you identified are not spending money on Churches or Evangelism.

They are spending money on Socialistic Programs that fit the concept of:

Socialism is feeding a man a fish, Christianity is teaching a man how to fish.

Capitalism has problems but I believe Capitalism is better than Socialism, when there is a Christian influence. Socialism takes a soft on sin (by both the rich and poor) approach that is not consistent with the Bible.

This is why I advocate Democracy, Christianity and Capitalism, and reject Democracy, Atheism and Socialism.

 

[clirus]

Art Vandelay quote

You're not addressing the crux of the issue - you are avoiding it.

Suppose that a poor person converts to Christianity and obediently adheres to all the commandments/doctrines of the Bible, faithfully following a 'Christian Lifestyle', and yet the conditions of his material poverty persist unmitigated. Despite his sincere conversion, he still lacks access to the resources necessary for his subsistence and lacks the opportunity to enhance his life any further then its present impoverished state. Despite his conversion then, and whatever lifestyle changes follow with it, he is still poor then.

Your solution to poverty is unrealistic because it does not address this key issue. Poverty is not merely a 'lifestyle disorder', though for some people it might be the result of lifestyle choices. There are people in this world who are poor despite their humble Christian lifestyles. There are people in this world who will continue to be poor even after conversion. Your 'solution' to poverty fails these people because it conceptualizes only a causal link between lifestyle and poverty, whilst completely ignoring other equally significant factors in the equation, such as lack of access to resources and opportunities for self-enhancement.

Response

I believe it is you that is not addressing the crux of the issue.

You can "suppose" all you want, but I believe accepting Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and committing to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible leads to the Christian Lifestyle that is the most environmentally friendly, socially responsible lifestyles that is possible on earth.

I prove the Christian Lifestyle is better than the Atheistic Lifestyle by proving most of the elements of the Atheistic Lifestyle lead to disease, death, destruction and poverty.

I believe most poverty is a lifestyle choice problem. Many people are willing to accept Jesus Christ, but have no intentions of following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.

Some say the person was never saved if they do not follow the commandments/doctrines of the Bible, others say your salvation can be lost if there is a failure to follow the commandments/doctrines of the Bible.

I believe it should be made clear to a person that they are expected to follow the commandments/doctrines of the Bible as part of their accepting Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior. To do less is a deception.

I believe a person with a clear mind (unburdened from sin) will find opportunity, and will not have to have opportunity given to them.

 

[peadar1987]

Clirus, in 2,510 posts, you have proved nothing.

 

[LightHorseman]

The people you identified are not spending money on Churches or Evangelism.

Right, they're spending money on feeding the poor, providing them clean drinking water and medical care, and medical research to eliminate diseases like malaria.

 

[LightHorseman]

Bill Gates is not an atheist.

In a November 1995 interview of Gates by David Frost, this exchange took place:
Frost: Do you believe in the Sermon on the Mount?
Gates: I don’t. I’m not somebody who goes to church on a regular basis. The specific elements of Christianity are not something I’m a huge believer in. There’s a lot of merit in the moral aspects of religion. I think it can have a very, very positive impact.
Frost: I sometimes say to people, do you believe there is a god, or do you know there is a god? And, you’d say you don’t know?


Gates: 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.
On January 13, 1996, in a “Time” magazine profile of Gates by Walter Isaacson, there was this exchange:
Isaacson: Isn’t there something special, perhaps even divine, about the human soul?
Gates: I don’t have any evidence on that.
Isaacson wrote: “Gates face suddenly becomes expressionless, his squeaky voice turns toneless, and he folds his arms across his belly and vigorously rocks back and forth in a mannerism that has become so mimicked at Microsoft that a meeting there can resemble a round table of ecstatic rabbis.”
Isaacson also quotes Gates as saying: “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.”

Doesn't exactly sound like Clirus' idea of a Christian either.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I believe a person with a clear mind (unburdened from sin) will find opportunity, and will not have to have opportunity given to them.

So what if you believe that? Why should we? I dare you to persuade us.

If someone does not have opportunities within their proximity, and no means of extending their reach beyond that proximity, then how can they possibly 'find opportunity' if it simply isn't there?

You can "suppose" all you want, but I believe accepting Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and committing to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible leads to the Christian Lifestyle that is the most environmentally friendly, socially responsible lifestyles that is possible on earth.

There you go again, avoiding the crux of the issue. Avoiding all the tough questions that bear scrutiny on your ideology. For your benefit, I shall repeat those questions, and eagerly await the answers that you have thus far failed to deliver.

If a person is poor, and they convert to the 'Christian Lifestyle', but the conditions contributing to their poverty (apart from lifestyle) continue to persist, then they will continue to remain poor, despite changes in lifestyle, won't they?

You are deliberately ignoring a significant factor in the equation of poverty by solely focusing on lifestyle alone, as if it were the only cause of impoverishment. We know that not to be true.

I believe most poverty is a lifestyle choice problem.

And that is your speculation, but you have yet to prove that, and until you do, it shall remain speculation.

There is no compelling reason for anyone to accept your claim as true simply because you believe it. Indeed, there appears to be no compelling reason for you to accept it either: you seem to be prejudiced to believe that to be so.

Indeed, you earlier remarked that the "concept that being rich is proof of Atheism is just a bad as the concept that poverty is proof of Atheism, that was refuted in Job." And yet, in stark contrast, you claim on an almost daily basis that most poverty is due to some 'Atheistic Lifestyle' and the disease/death/destruction that comes of it. In other words, you frequently suggest that poverty is largely proof of Atheism and its alleged Lifestyle. These two claims are incompatible: you are contradicting yourself.

 

[jgarden]

The Ten Greatest Philanthropists of All Time

**********************************************************
1. Benjamin Franklin - Franklin rejected much of his Puritan upbringing: belief in salvation, hell, Jesus Christ’s divinity, and indeed most religious dogma

2. Mother Teresa

3. Diana, Princess of Wales - never discussed her "religious" beliefs in public or mantained strong church affiliations

4. Bill Gates - "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."

5. Andrew Carnegie - confirmed atheist

6. John Rockefeller

7. David Packard

8. Gordon Moore

9. Eunice Kennedy Shriver

10. Oprah Winfrey - brought up in Baptist Church but has never discussed her "religious" beliefs in public or mantained strong church affiliations

Does Gates: 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.oldbetang" actually believe that 8 of "The 10 Greatest Philanthropists of All Time " just happen to be American?

Does "oldbetang" actually believe that 9 of "The 10 Greatest Philanthropists of All Time" just happen to be "white?"

Does "oldbetang" actually believe that 9 of "The 10 Greatest Philanthropists of All Time" just happen to be born in the 20th C?

 

[oldbetang]

**********************************************************
Does "oldbetang" actually believe that 8 of "The 10 Greatest Philanthropists of All Time " just happen to be Americans?

No. However, they are some of the most noteworthy.

 

[jgarden]

Bill Gates is not an atheist.

**********************************************************

Frost: I sometimes say to people, do you believe there is a god, or do you know there is a god? And, you'd say you don't know?

Gates: 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.

Gates was profiled by Walter Isaacson in a January 13, 1996 TIME MAGAZINE cover story. Here are some excerpts compiled by the Drudge Report:

Isaacson: Isn't there something special, perhaps even divine, about the human soul?

Gates: I don't have any evidence on that.

Whether Gates is an atheist or agnostic, the fact still remains that the world's most successful "practitioner" of capitalism, an economic philosophy many conservatives in this forum wish to endow with "divine" attributes, does not believe in a "god."

 

[oldbetang]

**********************************************************

Whether Gates is an atheist or agnostic, the fact still remains that the world's most successful "practitioner" of capitalism, an economic philosophy many conservatives in this forum wish to endow with "divine" attributes, does not believe in a "god."

So what? What's the relevance? The fact that a non-believer has done well under the system has nothing to say about whether Capitalism has divine attributes or not.

 

[rambot]

So what? What's the relevance? The fact that a non-believer has done well under the system has nothing to say about whether Capitalism has divine attributes or not.

Tell that to clirus...

 

[LightHorseman]

So what? What's the relevance? The fact that a non-believer has done well under the system has nothing to say about whether Capitalism has divine attributes or not.

I think Clirus disagrees with you, which is why we bring up Gates and other non-Christian philanthropists.

 

[clirus]

**********************************************************

Whether Gates is an atheist or agnostic, the fact still remains that the world's most successful "practitioner" of capitalism, an economic philosophy many conservatives in this forum wish to endow with "divine" attributes, does not believe in a "god."

I have never said Capitalism is perfect, but rather that Capitalism is better than Socialism.

Capitalism creates unequal prosperity, but Socialism creates equal poverty.

Just because a person attains wealth through Capitalism does not give Socialists a right to steal from the person that has attained wealth in an honest manner.

Are you trying to imply Gates and Buffet got their wealth in an illegal manner? I have not been able to understand what you are trying to prove with the discussion of Gate, Buffet and others.

Are you trying to say Gates and Buffet are better than Christians, because Gates and Buffet give away their wealth, even though there is no evidence Gates and Buffet have accepted Jesus Christ as Lord/Savior and committed to following the commandments/doctrines of the Bible. If Gates and Buffet think they are buying there way into Heaven that would be really disappointing.

 

[peadar1987]

Are you being wilfully ignorant here Clirus?

You say atheism creates death, disease and poverty. People give lots examples of atheists who are not dead, diseased or poor. Your argument falls down. It's that simple, and doesn't merit 30 threads of your cookie-cutter responses

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

Are you being wilfully ignorant here Clirus?

Yes, she is!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Are you being wilfully ignorant here Clirus?

You say atheism creates death, disease and poverty. People give lots examples of atheists who are not dead, diseased or poor. Your argument falls down. It's that simple, and doesn't merit 30 threads of your cookie-cutter responses

On closer inspection, it is often illuminated that a particular opinion is ill-founded. But, for Clirus, she cannot accept this. She dismisses any refutation as 'your opinion', and moves on to perpetually repeat the same ill-founded opinion over and over again, only to be refuted over and over again. Incessant repetition of an ill-founded claim does not substitute for a single pronouncement of a sound claim.

 

[clirus]

On closer inspection, it is often illuminated that a particular opinion is ill-founded. But, for Clirus, she cannot accept this. She dismisses any refutation as 'your opinion', and moves on to perpetually repeat the same ill-founded opinion over and over again, only to be refuted over and over again. Incessant repetition of an ill-founded claim does not substitute for a single pronouncement of a sound claim.

I believe Atheistic activity does lead to disease, death, destruction and poverty, which is consistent with the Bible.

Romans 6:23 states, "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

The only way you could prove me wrong is to prove that Atheistic activity does not lead to disease, death, destruction and poverty.

Nothing is ever absolute, but most (greater than 51%) is the bases for establishment.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The only way you could prove me wrong is to prove that Atheistic activity does not lead to disease, death, destruction and poverty.

Actually, no. You made the claim. The burden of proof is on you to substantiate it. You are asking us to first assume that your claim is true, and then, to attempt to disprove it. In the first instance there is no reason for us to assume that it is true since you have not proven it to be so. You can't get a free pass by saying 'I am right because no one can prove that I am wrong', since you have not even proven that you are right in the first place.

Nothing is ever absolute, but most (greater than 51%) is the bases for establishment.

Actually, no it's not, at least not in Science. Depending on which discipline, scientists usually set a probability value of at least 0.05. Meaning that if p is less than 0.05 then there is a statistically significant result. Medical science is even stricter, setting a p value of at least 0.01.

To verify that there is, in fact, a significant association between two categorical variables, such as Atheism and 'disease, death and destruction', you would need to set a p value (usually 0.05 in behavioural sciences), determine a research paradigm, and then conduct a Chi-square test for independence and relatedness on the data ascertained. And even then, your results and their interpretation would be open to severe scrutiny due to the high possibility of extraneous variables accounting for apparently significant results.

So I wonder... how much empirical research have you done to conclude that "Atheistic activity does lead to disease, death, destruction and poverty", or in other words, that there is a statistically significant correlation between Atheism and disease, death, destruction and poverty???*

* Keeping in mind that correlation too does not necessarily imply causation.

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

I believe Atheistic activity does lead to disease, death, destruction and poverty, which is consistent with the Bible.

Romans 6:23 states, "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

The only way you could prove me wrong is to prove that Atheistic activity does not lead to disease, death, destruction and poverty.

Nothing is ever absolute, but most (greater than 51%) is the bases for establishment.

Define "atheistic activity." Seems to me that's a wide enough hole to drive a Mack truck through.