musterion
Well-known member
It's a common form of fallacious and dishonest argumentation called mala fides... using an argument the arguer does not really believe is valid. Every atheist on this board is guilty of it.
Why is income inequality a bad thing?
- Thread starter ClimateSanity
- Start date
It's a common form of fallacious and dishonest argumentation called mala fides... using an argument the arguer does not really believe is valid. Every atheist on this board is guilty of it.
expos4ever
Well-known member
I think things are more complex than this. From the LA Times (emphasis mine):
My Sunday column comparing private philanthropy and government social programs has revived the old debate over who is more charitably inclined, conservatives or liberals?
Skipping to the last page of the story first, the answer is neither: As two MIT political scientists determined in a 2013 paper, the inclination to give appears to have virtually no relationship to one's partisan or ideological views. There are distinctions, however, in the kind of giving between the two poles.
.....
What the MIT researchers did find, however, was that conservatives give more to religious organizations, such as their own churches, and liberals more to secular recipients. Conservatives may give more overall, MIT says, but that's because they tend to be richer, so they have more money to give and get a larger tax benefit from giving it. (One of the things that makes social scientists skeptical of the benchmark survey Brooks used, in fact, is that it somehow concluded that liberals are richer than conservatives.)
The degree of religious contribution is important, because a 2007 study by Indiana University found that only 10% to 25% of church donations end up being spent on social welfare purposes, of which assistance to the poor is only a subset. In other words, if you think of "giving" as "giving to the poor," a lot of the money donated by conservatives may be missing the target.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Considering he identifies as a Christian, then the pair of you have jumped to an erroneous assumption. (Wow, that's new territory for you isn't it musty?
) It was pretty obvious he isn't an atheist on here as it is.
jgarden is a known unbeliever, he mocks ChristiansConsidering he identifies as a Christian, then the pair of you have jumped to an erroneous assumption. (Wow, that's new territory for you isn't it musty?
It was pretty obvious he isn't an atheist on here as it is.
He isn't. He has been around back when the subscriber's identification (Christian, atheist, agnostic, Muslim, etc.) was still on our posting profiles. He always used the identifier of "Christian". Insofar as *mocking Christians*, he doesn't. He mocks individuals who act out in an atrocious manner on the board. IF some happen to be "Christian" then they need to reflect on their own behavior.
Maybe I mistook him for some other Christ hating poster.
There is not one non-believer on this site who *hates Christ*. Not one.
Yes there are
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
No, he identifies as a Christian. Just because he isn't a far right zealot and has no truck with the kind of "ideology" associated doesn't make him an atheist.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Like who?
musterion
Well-known member
For there to be true income equality - or equality in anything - there has to be a clear baseline that applies to all, and to which all agree (or at least are willing to submit).
1. What is the baseline? How much we talking?
2. Who determines how much the baseline is for everyone else?
3. By what authority do they set it?
4. Are those setting the baseline exempted from submitting to it themselves?
5. What is to be done with anyone (and there will be many) who disagrees with the baseline, or with the idea of having one?
6. By what authority do you do #5?
1. What is the baseline? How much we talking?
2. Who determines how much the baseline is for everyone else?
3. By what authority do they set it?
4. Are those setting the baseline exempted from submitting to it themselves?
5. What is to be done with anyone (and there will be many) who disagrees with the baseline, or with the idea of having one?
6. By what authority do you do #5?
A person who thinks of people as disabled and weak instead of seeing the abilities and strengths in every person and how they can use them to support themselves isn't actually thinking.
It didn't demand anything from the government, though. And it still required the poor put in some work to gain those provisions for themselves.
Then you should be able to show how.
:doh:
Did you seriously not get my point?
ClimateSanity
New member
She does for sure. Christ asked Paul why he persecuted him? Paul was persecuting Christians. Rusha persecutes sincere Christians. Therefore she persecutes Christ.
I see you're still making claims you can't back. Rusha is persecuting "sincere Christians" (and I'm guessing you get to decide who they are, eh?) in what way again?
On income inequality, I'd say it's a matter of degree allowed relative to work. A man who is willing to work hard should be able to provide a decent life for his family. When the system is gamed to the extent that the wealthy prosper more and more and the middle class is diminished it's time for the greater part of that compact to do something about it before they find themselves wholly among the people they've been taught to blame for their misfortune by the people who are actually causing most of it.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
That they know their duty and reject it, even while claiming indifference about the existence of God, only magnifies their rebellion against God. The unbeliever will deny that what God has to say about their current state applies to them, yet Scripture teaches us that the unbeliever...
- is deceitful and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9);
- is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23);
- loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19);
- is unrighteous, does not understand, does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12);
- is helpless and ungodly (Rom. 5:6);
- is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1);
- is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3); and
- is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:16-20).
Appropriating our feeble emotions, e.g., love and hate, and then assuming these mimic God's love and hate is a mistake. By definition, if a person denies God, from God's perspective that person quite literally hates God.
AMR
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
This will, of course, be rejected by the Christ-rejecters and their "Christian" friends
The problem isn't in scripture, of course, but in how some Christians who confuse the Bible with a hammer and the unsaved with nails tend to use it, appropriating the feeble part and running with it like a toddler with scissors, to mix a bit.