Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to Atheist Philanthropy
I am compelled to add this, Gome...
When Gertrude Stein lay dying, her girlfriend lover, Alice B. Toklas, leaned over her and asked, “Gertrude, Gertrude, what is the answer?”
Gertrude is said to have responded, “What is the question?” And then she died.
posted by
arGee
on November 10, 2007 at 9:18 AM
| link to this | reply
posted by
richinstore
on November 10, 2007 at 6:03 AM
| link to this | reply
David1Spirit - there is no justification for my actions, not even the
cheap and self serving click whoring justifications I have used in the past are relevant any more.
I'm a sucker for punishment and have a combative nature that seems to make me incapable of avoiding a fight when the opportunity arises . These are the only things that I can think of but there must be more.
Yep, the "a little too much religion" is a lot like a botched lobotomy for some people.
posted by
gomedome
on November 9, 2007 at 8:44 PM
| link to this | reply
Oddy - there is simply no excuse for your leaving a commment such as that
at this stage of the game.
Where I am not even going to bother mentioning your questionable sincerity, I will address the reality that I have been on Blogit for over 4 years and we have had a great deal of dialogue over that time. If you are surprised by something such as this then all I can say is that you have been guilty of seeing only what you have wanted to see over that period. That's what single minded agendas do for people, which in your case was to prove at all costs and despite all evidence to the contrary, your ridiculous contention that anyone who does not believe in God could not possibly be a person of any substance.
It took me awhile to figure out how you have managed to begin commenting on my blogs again but I think I have it now. You must have set up a second Blogit account, the way this scripted interface works, there is no other possibility that I can think of. This leaves me with a decision; do I bother blocking you again? I am tempted to try a social experiment of which you will probably fail miserably. Let's see how long you can go without lying. Seriously, you've already blown it in your first comment when you attempted to take the meaning of your own words out of context but we'll overlook that one for now.
So the choices are: you can comment here if you do not lie, I don't care if you disagree with every word that I say if you can make a valid case but the minute you lie I will block you. The other choice is to get lost. I'm indifferent as to which one you choose.
posted by
gomedome
on November 9, 2007 at 4:55 PM
| link to this | reply
Jenasis - "Wealth being bad for the soul" as an ideal on its own are
simply the words of poor people attempting to justify their lack of ambition.
The quest for wealth can be all consuming and in that lies the real pitfall. There are certainly things more important in life than who has the biggest bank account but nothing replaces the self satisfaction that comes from success. Of course if success is not self defined then we run the risk of falling into the trap of attempting to meet and cater to societal expectations.
posted by
gomedome
on November 9, 2007 at 4:34 PM
| link to this | reply
Oh, Gomedome. Why do you even waste your time with the Philosopher Dude?
He is a walking contradiction of the "Be Good" statement that he used to mouth off about in his posts. I don't know if he still uses those words because I won't read his posts. I think he needs the clicks, so he goes after a subject he knows will get them. I hope it's only for clicks, because if he actually believes the stuff he comes up with, well......!!
At one time I found him likeable and intelligent enough, but that was a couple of years ago. In fact he was speaking about higher awareness and tolerance that I found very enlightening. Then one time he started in with me on the freedom of speech debate and put forth views that really shocked me (and quite frankly scared me). Then he resorted to calling me names. What he started doing was calling me (or he thought I was) another blogger.
I am quite sure he has lost his mind. Either that or he got a little too much "religion" at some point in time. Either way it's still a shame.
posted by
David1Spirit
on November 9, 2007 at 4:07 PM
| link to this | reply
Based on these two sentences you’ve written below,
I have to admit that I must’ve harbored an incorrect perception of you:
“I know in myself that there is something that compels me to be charitable…” -Gomedome
“ There is no greater high than an act of charity that impacts the life of another person in a positive fashion.” –Gomedome
posted by
Oddy
on November 9, 2007 at 2:49 PM
| link to this | reply
What an interesting article, Gomedome. I was taught that wealth is bad for the soul, but if one realizes the folly of wealth being entirely unnecessary, when there is obvious need, then we are freed from the paranoias brought about by the power of wealthy Christian ideals and institutions, then there is even more fear behind the name of Christ.
posted by
Jenasis
on November 9, 2007 at 2:02 PM
| link to this | reply
Pat_B - I wish I had written that, you encapsulate and express my feelings
to the letter.
I know in myself that there is something that compells me to be charitable other than worrying about how the big guy is going to judge me when I die. There is no greater high than an act of charity that impacts the life of another person in a positive fashion. If seeking this high is self serving, so be it. The self serving aspect can be addressed by never expecting anything in return and remaining anonymous if possible.
posted by
gomedome
on November 9, 2007 at 1:32 PM
| link to this | reply
I think if one believes this is it, this is all, our only chance to
leave the world better than we found it, we're inclined to be more generous. We understand the meaning of the phrase, more blessed to give than to receive. It's not because we fear hell or hope for a reward in heaven. It's understanding that we create the world. What we do impacts other. If we refuse kindness for its own sake we are morally bankrupt and what we create accuses us.
posted by
Pat_B
on November 9, 2007 at 1:22 PM
| link to this | reply
Ariala - I'm glad you derived a bit of entertainement from it
posted by
gomedome
on November 9, 2007 at 11:25 AM
| link to this | reply
FineYoungSinger - the laughable reality of those who want to insist that
non believers are not involved in charitable work immediately give themselves away as persons who themselves are not involved in charitable work.
The reason this is so is because anyone working for any registered charity at even a minor administion level would know that there are a great number of secular charities. With some of these started by or supported by atheists, agnostics and persons of non theist beliefs. The Red Cross, The United Way and many others are examples of secular charities. The American Humanist Association, The Council for Secular Humanism and Atheist Alliance International all have registered and extremely active charities as integral parts of their organizations. . there are many others.
posted by
gomedome
on November 9, 2007 at 11:22 AM
| link to this | reply
Kayzzaman - back to two word comments? - did the four words you left last
time give you a headache?
posted by
gomedome
on November 9, 2007 at 11:10 AM
| link to this | reply
Oddy - that's a nice try and another example of your backpeddling
For you to suggest that you had simply posed your hate filled, propaganda premised contentions as a question(s), is utterly laughable. Anyone can read the post HERE . . . the comments on the post are telling as well.
It is however refreshing to see that you are finally starting to realize that you are a religious numbnut.
posted by
gomedome
on November 9, 2007 at 11:08 AM
| link to this | reply
_teddypoet - thanx for stopping in
posted by
gomedome
on November 9, 2007 at 10:55 AM
| link to this | reply
gome...great post.
I'd like to add something here--I have a dear friend, an atheist, who is her area's largest financial supporter of Right-To-Life. Her argument is that to kill an unborn fetus is taking away the only shot at life an individual has, and violates her belief system.
Food for thought for anyone still thinking that an Atheist is neither capable of having a moral code, nor willing to support a charity through philanthropy.
posted by
FineYoungSinger
on November 9, 2007 at 10:40 AM
| link to this | reply
Can I help you club him one? ROFL, sorry Oddy, but that was a funny
line Gomey stuck in there!
posted by
Ariala
on November 9, 2007 at 10:23 AM
| link to this | reply
Interesting read
posted by
Kayzzaman
on November 9, 2007 at 9:25 AM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome – for the record, that religious numbnut simply posed it as a
question and never stated there was absolutely no record of any atheist ever performing philanthropy. This is interesting information……and kudos to those altruistic atheists who have given so much!
posted by
Oddy
on November 9, 2007 at 8:14 AM
| link to this | reply
Well-stated!
posted by
teddypoet_TheGoodByeFade
on November 9, 2007 at 7:48 AM
| link to this | reply