Good atheists are better than good non-atheists , according to Limmy - General

[QUOTE=MagicBurrito;28521515]Just because I'm Christian doesn't mean I do good things "only to get into heaven"[/QUOTE] Of course not, but when other people tell others that they are unable to do good things or that they don't count because they have not been instructed to, they imply that they can't tell the difference between right and wrong. [editline]10th March 2011[/editline] This is relevant: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn4DT5sHNWs[/media]

Altruism serves yourself by improving your community. Humans live in societies, after all. Other social creatures such as ants display "non-selfish" behaviour as well, while animals who live alone tend to care only about themselves and their offspring. It seems to me that indiscriminate altruism would be too easy to exploit to even evolve naturally.

[QUOTE=MagicBurrito;28521515]Just because I'm Christian doesn't mean I do good things "only to get into heaven"[/QUOTE] Its more of defending atheist then it is trying to say christians are evil.

Well I think the whole thing is kinda silly, how can you measure how "good" someone is based on their motives for doing good. They are still doing good regardless so in a sense that should make them equally "good."

he looks and sounds just like billy boyd!

Wow, my explanation for this has always been excessively bloated. Bravo.

Well I guess he's better than me then. The problem I have with this is that he completely generalizes two groups of people. Maybe I haven't watched all of it, but from what I've gotten he's pretty much saying "All good non-atheists have an ulterior motive for helping while all good atheists are doing it sincerely." Hell, I know I'm going to hell, I just do good things for others because I don't want others to feel the pain that I've felt before. I know how much it hurts, and nowadays very few people want to help others either for fear of being taken advantage of or just plain selfishness. Hell, people even bully you for helping others. But I don't care. Maybe when I'm 30 I'll become more cynical about life, but we'll see. I don't help people for a chance at the afterlife, and I'm sure a fair amount of other non-atheists do too, I do it just because its the right thing to do. I've actually been at odds with my dad (he's more Christian than I am) for even doing minor out of the way things.

Good and evil don't really exist anyway. Nobody is "evil". They're just messed up in the head. If you raise a kid to be morally twisted, it's not the kid's fault. As he grows into an adult, he's going to have those views with him and he's going to get blamed for it. But it's not really his fault. Same thing with being good. When you're a kid, you get praised for acting good and told off if you act bad. You're conditioned to enjoy doing good things. It continues into adulthood. Because of how social relationships work, it's usually working for you to act at least somewhat nice. If you're a total ass, you'll be left alone and nobody wants that. There's no comic book villains or heroes.

[QUOTE=markfu;28538344]Well I guess he's better than me then. The problem I have with this is that he completely generalizes two groups of people. Maybe I haven't watched all of it, but from what I've gotten he's pretty much saying "All good non-atheists have an ulterior motive for helping while all good atheists are doing it sincerely." Hell, I know I'm going to hell, I just do good things for others because I don't want others to feel the pain that I've felt before. I know how much it hurts, and nowadays very few people want to help others either for fear of being taken advantage of or just plain selfishness. Hell, people even bully you for helping others. But I don't care. Maybe when I'm 30 I'll become more cynical about life, but we'll see. I don't help people for a chance at the afterlife, and I'm sure a fair amount of other non-atheists do too, I do it just because its the right thing to do. I've actually been at odds with my dad (he's more Christian than I am) for even doing minor out of the way things.[/QUOTE] This is a response to people saying "atheists can't be good" or "you can't be moral without god", not an attack on theists.

he has the best american accent ever he sound like elvis if he were chewing gum and was from jersey

Watched limmy's new episode that aired last night. I just saw this : [img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/888382/limmy%20you%20fucking%20ledge.JPG[/img] Duty calls. This guy seems more awesome every day.

So his point is, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that good atheists > good non-atheists is because: Non-atheists do the good for a reward, and he is implying that good atheists do good for no reward? Ladies and gentlemen: [b]There is no such thing as a selfless good deed[/b]

[QUOTE=collegegrad;28549052]So his point is, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that good atheists > good non-atheists is because: Non-atheists do the good for a reward, and he is implying that good atheists do good for no reward? Ladies and gentlemen: [b]There is no such thing as a selfless good deed[/b][/QUOTE] So giveing a homeless person some money is all part of my secret agenda?

[QUOTE=Superkilll307;28550943]So giveing a homeless person some money is all part of my secret agenda?[/QUOTE] People do these sort of things to make themselves feel better. Do you help that homeless person find a good job too? Giving money to a homeless person money is going to feed him for maybe a day, while finding him a job gives him the opportunity to sustain himself. REALLY doing good takes effort, and there are few people who do this; they're called saints. Anyway, this video makes far too many generalizations to be taken seriously. Each person has its own motives and background. There are plenty of 'good Christians' that are just good people too, and not necessarily because of their beliefs. There are plenty of 'good atheists' that act just the way they do because there's still a social control from family, friends and the rest of their environment.

[QUOTE=collegegrad;28549052]So his point is, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that good atheists > good non-atheists is because: Non-atheists do the good for a reward, and he is implying that good atheists do good for no reward? Ladies and gentlemen: [B]There is no such thing as a selfless good deed[/B][/QUOTE] No, he's making a response to people who say "you can't be moral without believing in god" and by replying "you're just doing it for reward or just because you're afraid of hell" he's only talking about those people, not all theists. [B]The point flew way over your head.[/B] Also where the fuck did you get "non-atheist" from? Can you provide etymology for it please? [QUOTE=Clavus;28551309]People do these sort of things to make themselves feel better. [/QUOTE] Yeah I'm totally giving my seat to a pregnant woman on a bus, because I'm a selfish asshole who's addicted to making himself feel better by "helping" others, not because I actually want to help the lady.

[QUOTE=collegegrad;28549052]There is no such thing as a selfless good deed[/QUOTE] Unless you don't call out of your heart selfless then you are wrong.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;28552061]Also where the fuck did you get "non-atheist" from? Can you provide etymology for it please?[/QUOTE] Non-atheist Meaning: not an atheist Etymology: non- (a common prefix to indicate negation) atheist (one who doesn't believe in deities) Examples of usage: in the video quoted in the OP

[QUOTE=ThePuska;28554925]Non-atheist Meaning: not an atheist Etymology: non- (a common prefix to indicate negation) atheist (one who doesn't believe in deities) Examples of usage: in the video quoted in the OP[/QUOTE] That's a double negative if you haven't noticed. There is already a negative in "atheist". First there is "theist" (believe in a deity) and then there is someone who doesn't believe, an "atheist" (the first word + "a" (a common prefix to indicate negation)). non-atheist makes as much sense as aatheist anontheist or nonnontheist. :bravo:

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;28558762]That's a double negative if you haven't noticed. There is already a negative in "atheist". First there is "theist" (believe in a deity) and then there is someone who doesn't believe, an "atheist" (the first word + "a" (a common prefix to indicate negation)). non-atheist makes as much sense as aatheist anontheist or nonnontheist. :bravo:[/QUOTE] Does it really matter? [h2]no.[/h2]

[QUOTE=Instant Mix;28559570]Does it really matter? [h2]no.[/h2][/QUOTE] Nope, just pointing out someone's fallacy.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;28559852]Nope, just pointing out someone's fallacy.[/QUOTE] Well if you're really going to argue definitions and words than I'd like to point out what he did wasn't a "fallacy" as you like to call it, a fallacy is a misconception from piss reasoning. It being a double negative doesn't make it any less valid or wrong, and is certainly not a misconception. Nor is it deceiving in any way, the point gets across if he says non-atheist or theist, it doesn't really matter which term he uses, for it brings about no fallacy.

oh god i can't understand his accent :(

[QUOTE=Instant Mix;28548937]Watched limmy's new episode that aired last night. I just saw this : [img_thumb]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/888382/limmy%20you%20fucking%20ledge.JPG[/img_thumb] Duty calls. This guy seems more awesome every day.[/QUOTE] Actually that's a gaming poster I had a while ago. I wonder if I still have it. Apparently not, but it said "GAMING ZONE DUTY CALLS NOOBS BEWARE" You understand why I got rid of it don't you?

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;28558762]That's a double negative if you haven't noticed. There is already a negative in "atheist". First there is "theist" (believe in a deity) and then there is someone who doesn't believe, an "atheist" (the first word + "a" (a common prefix to indicate negation)). non-atheist makes as much sense as aatheist anontheist or nonnontheist. :bravo:[/QUOTE] Does it really matter People say things like "not symmetrical" or "not typical" when they just as easily could have said asymmetrical and atypical, but nobody cares This is the same, but in reverse

[QUOTE=Zeke129;28567376]Does it really matter People say things like "not symmetrical" or "not typical" when they just as easily could have said asymmetrical and atypical, but nobody cares This is the same, but in reverse[/QUOTE] People don't say non-asymmetrical or non-atypical though, do they?

I have been using this idea for ages. Glad it isn't just me.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;28567497]People don't say non-asymmetrical or non-atypical though, do they?[/QUOTE] The point is that you should be able to intuit well enough to figure out what someone meant when they said non-atheist or whatever, if a simple double negative throws anyone off like you seem to be implying it does then I'm not exactly sure they should be on the internet watching the video in the first place.

[QUOTE=NorthernGate;28568499]The point is that you should be able to intuit well enough to figure out what someone meant when they said non-atheist or whatever, if a simple double negative throws anyone off like you seem to be implying it does then I'm not exactly sure they should be on the internet watching the video in the first place.[/QUOTE] You're implying that I didn't understand. You're implying that anyone who points out someone else's mistake in spelling or use of words shouldn't use the internet. Just to remind you, you've corrected me on the use of "fallacy". It must have threw you off and I'm not exactly sure if you should be on the internet. And the point is, someone made a double negative, I pointed it out. That's it. What the fuck is the fuss about?

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;28569809]You're implying that I didn't understand. You're implying that anyone who points out someone else's mistake in spelling or use of words shouldn't use the internet. Just to remind you, you've corrected me on the use of "fallacy". It must have threw you off and I'm not exactly sure if you should be on the internet. And the point is, someone made a double negative, I pointed it out. That's it. What the fuck is the fuss about?[/QUOTE] Well first, I never said you didn't understand nor did I imply it, you're the one thinking that I thought you didn't understand. You also can't read properly it seems, as I said people who are thrown off so easily by a double negative probably need to warm up their intelligence before bracing the internet again. Secondly I don't understand how arguing your misuse of the word fallacy places me as the ignorant one who needs to leave the internet and learn a bit. Finally, you're the one making a fuss about it seeing as you're the one who started arguing over him using the word non-atheist. Sure, stopping the argument after being shown the obvious would've been great, but for some reason you persisted to comment about how silly it was. Though I'm not much better by pursuing this.