Summer means no religion or politics?

[Akatosh]

Who the f^**^ said to do what they order you to.

Pretty much every "holy scripture" and organised religion ever. Apart from maybe the Principia Discordia. 

No need to flip out like that, though. If I somehow offended you, I apologise, of course... although I'm not really sure where the offense would have happened.

[Khris]

Dualnames, those people you mentioned are probably high or something.

That's when religion clicks in and reminds us that we can be punished if being bad.
Got my point?

Ahahaha, sorry.

Seriously, how do you explain all those priests molesting children then? (Disregarding the inquisition, the crusades, the witch hunts and all the other good stuff religion apparently reminded us to do.)

I can't believe you're serious. In order to follow the Golden Rule or to not became an egotistical asshole I need to believe that I'm eating the body of Christ when the priest hands me a wafer? Come ON.

For a moment I thought we were getting productive here, but it seems the believers switched right back to the same old irrational nonsense here.

[Nacho]

Hey, I was basically refering to Miguel... To be honest, I read his posts more carefully than yours... 

[miguel]

Dual, Nacho only hates me and I'd like that not to change, please!

I LOVE YOU NACHO!

in a very manly way with a 3 days beard and beer bottles next to me...

[Nacho]

I don't hate you... ^_^ I only hate hate...

[Dualnames]

I don't hate you... ^_^ I only hate hate...

That's Nacho alrighty!!

[miguel]

Khris, priests are just common men. And the crusades don't exist any more.
On a ceremony like going to Church, one that you don't have to go (so why do you bother?), the rituals are part of it and represent the life of Jesus on earth.
If one loves Jesus then he'll feel respect when going through that ritual.
We also kiss each other at some point, even people we actually don't know. It makes us feel equal and good about ourselves.
Sorry man, but it's this simple. 

[Khris]

Sure they are just common men. My point being, if the church has this power of reminding men what's good, why doesn't it even work on its own guys. Shouldn't all priests and bishops and the like be role models of good behavior if what you say is true, without exception? Yet there are child molesters and holocaust deniers among them.
What I'm saying is that this strongly points to something else causing people to be good, not the church.

Also, is it better to do good because one fears the fires of hell or because one is compelled to do so?

See, it isn't that simple. (In fact it is, but it isn't the way you see it.)

[Akatosh]

A point worth restating, appearantly...

If the only reason you are not a lying, stealing mass-murderer is the threat of eternal torture, please keep at least one country away from me at all time.

[miguel]

Khris, the Church does reminds men what's good but cannot or will ever determine the fate of more than 400.000 priests in the world. But yes, they should be role models of good behaviour only they're only human like me or you and do fail if they must.
I think that you keep pointing out the fact that there are priest who abuse children (it's the 10th time or more!) because you want me to defend them. I will never defend such a man or woman and if I ever encounter something so horrible I'm not sure I can stop myself from making sure they'll never do it again. Believe me, I'm a father and just the thought of something like that makes me sick.
About the holocaust, did you think I would defend such people that deny it?

About your question, it's always better to do good at any given situation, I just don't think that we are capable of doing it alone.
Khris, I understand your doubts and am happy that you are capable of reasoning and be a good man without any divine help, I just don't think that most people are like you.

Maybe we see the same thing in a different way.

[Khris]

I don't want you to defend either group, no. But IMO their existence clashes with your view of the moral power of the church. That's why I brought it up again.
(I also think that celibate i.e. the years-long repressed sexual desires are among the main causes of child molesting. Another great addition to the catholic churches long record of stupid.)

So you're saying that the church might remind some people what being good is.
And, since we're all human, that it can fail at that even for its own members.
Okay then.
Now, if most people, as you say, aren't capable of reasoning and being good men without (divine*) help, do you really think the church is still the best way to address that?
I mean, what does a statement like "I found to Jesus" even mean? They didn't find him in an old box in their basement and got a stern talking-to from him, right?

However, my main point was if it isn't rather something else that compels man to do good. And if it wasn't better to renew that instead of stuffing superstition down their throats, especially if that superstition motivates by threatening with eternal punishment, not social acceptance itself.

* there's no such thing; at least no evidence for it

[miguel]

Does a corrupt judge bring down the judicial system of a country?
Celibacy was intended as a mean to address women by men in a society where women had absolutely no rights. At that time the word of a priest was the law to simple people and the Church decided that by forbidding them to have sexual relations was a way for woman to trust them. A women could not be seen with another man in the street other than her husband, and there was no other practical way of spreading the word with the female gender.
It was a political decision.

I clearly said that the Church always remembers people to do good.
And I clearly say now that most people will do whatever they can to accomplish their needs and the lack of Divine Morality will free them to do so because there wont be a punishment (this is a mental state, not physical) but only immediate reward.
I am sorry if this sounds radical, but your views do the same to me.

*of course there is, you've been talking about it for the past 2 months! 

[Akatosh]

Fuck, not the "Atheists are not actually Atheists because why have a word for a deity if there is no such thing" again. Miguel, are you going through a hitlist of the oldest and stalest arguments out there? First the Nazis, then the morality, now the word?

I assume you have some basic knowledge of programming. Ever heard of "null pointers"? You can have a word for something and debate the existence or nonexistence of it without the subject in question magically popping into physical existence. Case in point: Fictional characters.

I clearly said that the Church always remembers people to do good.

...which is also why the Crusaders were given full absolution for past and future deeds, I suppose? Gee, that sounds not the slightest bit like provocation to me!

Or, you know, the crap that keeps being said about condoms. Way to help AIDS spread, Mr. Ratzinger. Expecting "abstinence-only" programs to work is a lot like trying to spit out wildfires.

As Khris said, the church does try, and occasionally succeeds at doing some good to some people... which puts it exactly on the same level as every organisation ever. You'd expect the One True Religion^TM do to a lot better than that, wouldn't you? And yet, despite all the prayers, childs in Africa continue to starve. Man, I can really feel YHWH's love.

And I clearly say now that most people will do whatever they can to accomplish their needs and the lack of Divine Morality will free them to do so because there wont be a punishment (this is a mental state, not physical) but only immediate reward.

This is simply not true. A lot of people just don't like being jerks, and act altruistically without a magical sky daddy threatening to fry them with lightning should they dare to eat shrimp (Book Leviticus! \o//). A system of the Golden Rule and the Categoric Imperative is just as effective as your "Divine Morality"^TM, and doesn't bring the threat of fundamentalism or the assorted debris with it that (most) religions do.

Celibacy was intended as a mean to address women by men in a society where women had absolutely no rights. At that time the word of a priest was the law to simple people and the Church decided that by forbidding them to have sexual relations was a way for woman to trust them. A women could not be seen with another man in the street other than her husband, and there was no other practical way of spreading the word with the female gender.
It was a political decision.

... I have no words for this. You do know that a good deal of sexism originally sprang from the texts of your holy book, do you? For example, you can very easily interpret the tale in Genesis to have a moral like "Women were created for men, to be their helpmeet, and are responsible for all the sin in the world, having fallen to temptation."  Once again, it was not thanks to, but despite the efforts of Christianity that a more just society was established.

[miguel]

You throw the same arguments to me on and on, it's the crusades, inquisition, condoms and I've explained my view on that several times. The thing is that you don't accept my ideas.

You can't compare God to null pointers, or you can but I wont debate that. Imagine a 3 month topic about null pointers.
Listen, I don't want to sound sarcastic or close minded but no matter what, in your life time and mine, God will be around as it is something that us (human beings) have genetically adopted. You will live your life denying God but at the end you'll say something like "Hey, I wasn't that bad compared to (...insert some nasty characters here...) and, If you really exist I want to be on your good side!". It happened before and in critical situations every single one of us do ask for His help. Take a look at war reports of guys that are surrounded with no possible victory situation. Or the final phone calls from the people on the fatal flights on 9/11.
It's just the way we are.

I'm a Christian and agree that the Vatican is failing with the condoms issue.

Why do you expect the Church to do a better job at helping others? I mean, you constantly try to spread the idea that their purposes aren't legit. You constantly attack them. But one thing I'm sure, if you ever need help from them they'll be there for you. I hope you never need it and that you live a long and happy life.

I'm sorry to say that lots of people are jerks and if given the possibility to run over you, they will. And they don't really know of the golden rule or the categoric imperative because they aren't as capable or educated than you. Instead, the simplicity of Jesus message through parables that are easily understood by everyone is a much more efficient method.

Well, the Vatican always swam with the tide if you know what I mean. At that time nobody expected women to emancipate or even to talk about such matters. Yet, the main characters on the Bible are Mary and Mary Magdalene, in my opinion, of course.   

[Akatosh]

You throw the same arguments to me on and on, it's the crusades, inquisition, condoms and I've explained my view on that several times. The thing is that you don't accept my ideas.

I keep citing those examples because you keep taking a general stance. If somebody claims that organisation A (or their philosophy) is "always good", for example, a common counterargument is to point out atrocities commited by organisation A (or those that sprang forth from said philosophy). I repeat myself mainly because you repeat yourself... I think we're starting to reach the point where the debate just starts circling and circling.

However, you're right in that I can't really get behind the "believe without evidence" mindset. You're free to keep it, of course... although I'm not really sure why you'd do that). Care to explain?

Listen, I don't want to sound sarcastic or close minded but no matter what, in your life time and mine, God will be around as it is something that us (human beings) have genetically adopted. You will live your life denying God but at the end you'll say something like "Hey, I wasn't that bad compared to (...insert some nasty characters here...) and, If you really exist I want to be on your good side!". It happened before and in critical situations every single one of us do ask for His help. Take a look at war reports of guys that are surrounded with no possible victory situation. Or the final phone calls from the people on the fatal flights on 9/11.
It's just the way we are.

I wouldn't say genetically adopted, as it's more of a cultural thing, but I think I sort of see what you're saying. Humans are prone to "magical thinking", on account of our brains being hard-wired for pattern detection; you'll certainly get some false positives.

I can't say what will be at the end of my life, and neither can you. However, my current self would be very disappointed indeed if old Akatosh abandons his principles on the deathbed and picks a deity at random to submit to (although I'm not sure how he'd make his choice, with the thousands upon thousands of religions out there). Here's to hoping I'll keep my intellectual honesty.

Some people grasp at straws in dire situations, some don't. Humans do have a tendency to throw rationality overboard for a slim promise of hope (see all the quacks out there for details), that's true, but I'm not sure which relevancy this is supposed to have.

I'm a Christian and agree that the Vatican is failing with the condoms issue.

Good to hear. Although this sort of goes against the infallibility (likely misspelled) of your "Divine Morality", and the whole pope-as-Jesus'-right-hand thing. 

Why do you expect the Church to do a better job at helping others? I mean, you constantly try to spread the idea that their purposes aren't legit. You constantly attack them. But one thing I'm sure, if you ever need help from them they'll be there for you. I hope you never need it and that you live a long and happy life.

I've never said their purposes were inherenlty bad. The churches out there can undeniably do some good, and when they do... yay for them.What I wanted to point out was that you have to always be on the watch for the fundies (which don't underline the humane aspects of the philosophy as the current leadership of the church does)... and that I don't really see why my money should go towards an organisation that also help the poor instead of donating to these that focus on the same thing.

I'm sorry to say that lots of people are jerks and if given the possibility to run over you, they will. And they don't really know of the golden rule or the categoric imperative because they aren't as capable or educated than you. Instead, the simplicity of Jesus message through parables that are easily understood by everyone is a much more efficient method.

Idiots will be idiots, that's true... but "eternal hellfire" isn't the only weapon against them on an emotional level, you know. Once again, religion can maybe help a bit to establish social stability, but it's hardly a prerequisite for a civilised society.

Also, as I said before... if you only want religion for its stabilising purposes, why not just make one up whole-cloth? It'll be just as non-falsifiable as the previous ones, and have the added advantage of being a lot less messy and a lot more streamlined (and not as freaking self-contradictory).

Well, the Vatican always swam with the tide if you know what I mean. At that time nobody expected women to emancipate or even to talk about such matters. Yet, the main characters on the Bible are Mary and Mary Magdalene, in my opinion, of course.

I'd say the main characters in the Bible are YHWH, Jesus and Mr. Holy Spirit, to a lesser extent. Or maybe main character, thanks to that trinity doctrine (the issues a gigantic mess). The Marys do play a role, but they are part of the supporting cast at best. The overwhelming majority of characters in the Bible are male, and when women do show up, they usually take the role of the temptress or Skeptic.



Forgot this one, sorry:

You can't compare God to null pointers, or you can but I wont debate that. Imagine a 3 month topic about null pointers.

I was talking about the word. The fact that we debate the existence or nonexistence of a topic doesn't mean the subject of our discussion has to exist, as you claimed. If it doesn't, the word "God" more or less becomes a null pointer, plain and simple.

[Khris]

and, If you really exist I want to be on your good side!"
[...]
I'm sorry to say that lots of people are jerks and if given the possibility to run over you, they will. And they don't really know of the golden rule or the categoric imperative because they aren't as capable or educated than you. Instead, the simplicity of Jesus message through parables that are easily understood by everyone is a much more efficient method.

I actually LOLed when I read that. First Pascal's wager again. No further comment necessary.

Then you say that parables are easier understood then the Golden Rule? Well, alright, no point in debating this.
But the thing here is, the people who run over others are in general perfectly aware of "the rules", they just ignore them on purpose. So it doesn't really matter whether you tell them stories about houses being built on sand or general "be good to others" stuff.

But enough of this.
I strongly get the feeling that you're simply parroting all the stuff you got fed during your religious upbringing. I have a hard time believing that any person could come up with your reasoning all by themselves; somebody who wants to do good and who wants others to do good should realize that the best way to convey that attitude is convincing people to do good for the sake of doing good.

Did you read "Lord of the Flies"? I really recommend it. It's a great book and a perfect analogy to what happened in the western world in the last two millenniums.

[miguel]

Akatosh,
I guess you assume that I regard evidences as badly as you do. Concerning God and people in general, I kind of trust my 6th sense (maybe I've got to much of those female hormones ).
Hey, I don't want to become to personal about my life as it seams that this topics are widely viewed and although I've got nothing to hide I do like my privacy. Debating those with you and Khris is one thing, but there are many others I simply don't know. All this to tell you that I had a pretty hard life this far, without a mother since I was 8 and having to raise younger brothers with a absent father was a heavy toll on my formation and surely shaped what I am today.
I didn't want to reveal this because I honestly don't need patronizing or petty. Life is like that and I'm here today and support my own family.
Well, If I tell you that through my life (I'm 33) Jesus was the one that kept telling me to stay at the right track and please don't come to me with questions like what was it like? Was he wearing a white robe? Did he speak Portuguese? There's no Special Effects with dynamic surround here. But in my mind I could feel his presence in situations that I clearly pushed the boundaries of social behaviour. If I tell you that you wont believe me or will try to debate it with a psychologist approach, one that I've studied it myself until I reached some conclusions of my own.

Aren't we discussing the Catholic Church? Because I only speak about what I think to have some knowledge of. Although there are "thousands of religions" I firmly believe there is only one God that is interpreted differently across the globe.
The link you supplied is a grain of dust among the testimonies of people that asked for forgiveness when about to die. I will not bother to link you to some sites because you can just do it yourself.
About it's relevancy, well it makes it all different in my opinion. How can you say that when pure atheists do change at the end of their lives (and it is the generality of human beings) is not relevant?

The current pope was a short term political option to the Vatican. Personal friend with John Paul he had all the attributes to sussed him and other options could step in, some with lower conservative mentalities that were refuted by the council.

We already agreed that fundamentalism is wrong (at least we believe so) and I think we should bury our hatchet on that.

If religion is obsolete or not on civilised societies is something we still have to wait my friend. Our civilization is still at the very beginning. If we don't start pushing those red buttons, of course.

As for main characters, both Mary's still have a very important role in the future. Maybe some revelations are bound to shine some light on the matter. It's only a theory of some well respected theologists (misspelled for sure) and I'll wait and see.
-----------------------------------------------------------------   --------------------------------------------------------------------
Khris,
Blaise Pascal, although interesting to follow was a man of faith who tried to bound two different worlds. A very important man, indeed.

It does matter telling people that although they can ignore "the rules" it's wrong to do it. If I tell them so it doesn't make any difference but the existence of God casts a larger shadow on their intentions.

Your wrong about me and my upbringings. Parrots don't think, and I consider myself as intelligent than you. Except coding, that I accept .
Seriously, of course nobody would come with the same reasoning like me without outside influences. Did you receive a computer last Christmas and were completely unaware of its capabilities? You turned it on and just started to code?
The point here is that when a given situation arrives in my life that I think my opinion is helpful to others I do explain myself 90% of the times without quoting God or any Catholic idea. You seam to have assumed that.
We are debating religion beliefs aren't we?
You want to convince me that we live in a reasonable world without God's help, but that is just not the case.

Didn't read it but am aware of it. Promise to read it when I can.
         

[Nacho]

"6th sense"? Okay, now we have something to discuss about. Prove under experimental circumstances that you have a 6th sense... It's easy, guessing which is the hidden card more times than the expected by luck, for instance, or something like that... Actually, you can put the test!

If you don't pass the test, you would be justifying supernatural stuff with some other supernatural stuff... In other words, you would be saying something like "I believe in Donald duck... a smurf told me it was real!".

[Lionmonkey]

Short answer: FACTS. As you said, if you don't know for sure, you believe - but we DO know for sure.

But you can't! That's what a half or more of my posts in here were all about.

Lionmonkey: Notice Khris comma placement - it's really important here. He did not say "He could not have done that, as he is an Atheist." - you would be rightly shocked by this position, as it's just plain silly to claim that belonging to a certain philosophy makes you downright saintly. What he said was "This action was not caused by his Atheism.", and he is right with that. Absence of belief in an idea does not, in itself, cause people to take actions.

Thanks for clearing this up. I guess my knowelge of English punctuation is to blame.
I didn't mean to say that their atheism makes people more likely to become criminals. What I meant was that it doesn't give them any extra "protection" against that. It depends on the individuals personality, religious, or not.

Oh, and I never claimed you claimed you had that education. I just wanted to point out that you made a really, really basic mistake there, and that it's probably not a good idea to debate using terms of formal logic without really knowing how it works.

I can't say I knew, I used these terms of formal logic. I simply tried to explain my point of view, using the words, I'm comfortable with. I don't think that using a term of something makes you obliged to obey its rules, like, you would help a man in need, but wouldn't restrict your sexual life, like christian religion teaches.
[/quote]

Lionmonkey:
Listen. This is the axiom: "IF a is true and b is true, THEN a is true."
The axiom doesn't make any claim about whether a is true.
There's nothing to believe here.
I think you're having trouble understanding this because an axiom is so obvious and self-evident, a tautology, like you said. But that's just the way it is.
Another example would be: "x = x". (Given that x is part of a formal language, I think. Look up axiom on wikipedia.)

How does it not claim that a is true, if it says that: "IF this and this, THEN a is true"?

In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

"not proved or demonstrated", "considered to be self-evident", "taken for granted". 

1) Do you think that a boy, born on an island who lives a good kind life, loves his parents, is nice to animals, etc, but who will never hear about Jesus or God or the Bible because he's cut off from the world will go to hell because he hasn't accepted Jesus?  Or can he go to heaven?

If "Hell," then I'd argue that your god is a jerk.  But ignoring that, if he can go to heaven:

Provided that Bible says the truth, I'd say, he'll go wherever he thinks he should go. Be that heaven, hell or something else.
Also, I doubt that boy would be a human. Humans are evil bastards. Which brings us to the next question: "Do robots go to heaven?".

An old woman living on her pension has somebody knocking at her door saying she/he is a Jehovah witness. Unaware of the danger she opens the door to this stranger but everything turns out aright because it was not a thief.
Due to solitude and lack of somebody listening to her she hears the witness and accepts some literature. She agrees to meat the stranger again.

Not my grandmother.

Heaven and Hell is just the sum of our presence in our world. There will be a time where every single one of us will ask for forgiveness to God as we see our life slipping away. You'll do that to your loved ones if you (I hope it never happens) see them die as well. All sane men don't reject God when their time is finished. Even if it's a infinite figment of your brain, it will rise and cling to God as a final truce with him. Every one of us.

Sane men just don't have the guts.

..even if God exists, due to the incompetence of humans to understand something, it has been misinterpreted.

Aye on that one.

It seems to be basically the same 3-4 people producing enormous amounts of text saying basically the same things without moving an inch in any direction, so it doesn't feel very "general" anymore...

I'll try to point to my earlier posts instead of doing that.

...my actual haircolor is sort of hard to pinpoint, as it hovers somewhere between blonde and brown..

I cannot stay away from this, because I recognise a man with the same problem, I had myself. I've searched alot for the correct definition and in the end learned that in English they call it "light brown".

Khris, YES I believe that a man can be good without knowing Jesus.

I doubt that a man can be good at all.

I know lots of non-religious people that admit they ask God's help numerous times in their lives.   

I think, that's just being rational: "I need every bit of chance, I can get to do this=>There is a small chance that God exists=>Ask God for help." There's nothing to lose with that anyway.

The same way you debate or refuse the 10 Commandments, others will refuse educational manners that we accept..

I can do that.

Hey! Reply to me! You say that the oly difference about the religion and any other non supernatural inspired education is that "you can feel it". I can't.

I think, this whole "feel it" thing is a form of egoism: "This can't be all I get from life, I'm worth more.=>There's gotta be something more to this, something supernatural, something after death."

What I'm saying is that this strongly points to something else causing people to be good, not the church.

Also, is it better to do good because one fears the fires of hell or because one is compelled to do so?

This is simply not true. A lot of people just don't like being jerks, and act altruistically without a magical sky daddy threatening to fry them with lightning should they dare to eat shrimp (Book Leviticus! \o//). A system of the Golden Rule and the Categoric Imperative is just as effective as your "Divine Morality"^TM, and doesn't bring the threat of fundamentalism or the assorted debris with it that (most) religions do.

That's it, I can't hold it anymore.
In my opinion, the only actual reason a person does something "good" is because one's egoistical self wants appreciation. Don't you like it when someone says "thank-you very much" or "oh, thanks, that's so nice of you" to you? It's kinda like getting a handjob.
Of course, you guys can argue that sometimes these "good" deeds are done even if nobody's around to see them. Well if the former thing was a handjob, then this is the masturbation. You can praise yourself for being so kind and selfless, helping when no one sees you do that.
With all that in mind, I can't say I'm any different. I'm a human, so I'll have to live with it. Just don't call humans "essentually good" anymore.

[Akatosh]

Akatosh,
I guess you assume that I regard evidences as badly as you do. Concerning God and people in general, I kind of trust my 6th sense (maybe I've got to much of those female hormones ).

So you admit you didn't make a rational decision in terms of faith, instead relying on feelings and "intuition"? If so, we should probably just end the debate at that point... you can't really hope to talk productively with somebody whose basic method of thought is different.

Aren't we discussing the Catholic Church? Because I only speak about what I think to have some knowledge of. Although there are "thousands of religions" I firmly believe there is only one God that is interpreted differently across the globe.

Emphasis mine. I suppose this is another "emotional" thing?

Keep in mind that there are crass differences between religions. Many Pagan religions, for example, are completly incompatible with the stricter Monotheisms.

The link you supplied is a grain of dust among the testimonies of people that asked for forgiveness when about to die. I will not bother to link you to some sites because you can just do it yourself.
About it's relevancy, well it makes it all different in my opinion. How can you say that when pure atheists do change at the end of their lives (and it is the generality of human beings) is not relevant?

Because I fail to see what this means for the correctness or incorrectness of (dis)belief. Maybe quite a bunch of people become hypocrites on their deathbeds, grasping at straws, but that's really just a human thing. Terminally ill people also try faith healing or New Age "medicine". What point does this make? That dying people sometimes fall victim to the same flawed logic as Mr. Pascal?

We already agreed that fundamentalism is wrong (at least we believe so) and I think we should bury our hatchet on that.

That's good to hear. So you admit your religion could, in fact, be wrong? (That's sorta the prerequisite for not being a fundie...)

If religion is obsolete or not on civilised societies is something we still have to wait my friend. Our civilization is still at the very beginning. If we don't start pushing those red buttons, of course.

Heh, I hear ya 

Personally, I think the trend that began during the Renaissance will continue, with the numbers of believers slowly dwindling as scientific knowledge expands and the "gaps" people like to suspect as a deity's hiding places slowly closing. But hey, maybe we'll actually stumble upon one there.  We'll have to wait and see.

As for main characters, both Mary's still have a very important role in the future. Maybe some revelations are bound to shine some light on the matter. It's only a theory of some well respected theologists (misspelled for sure) and I'll wait and see.

I thought the Bible was considered finished and no more revelations would be neccessary... but that may be a Catholic thing. I dunno, I was raised Protestant (and later dropped the faith).

(I'll leave the rest to Khris, as you specifically directed it to him... although my fingers are kinda itching...  )

In my opinion, the only actual reason a person does something "good" is because one's egoistical self wants appreciation. Don't you like it when someone says "thank-you very much" or "oh, thanks, that's so nice of you" to you? It's kinda like getting a handjob.
Of course, you guys can argue that sometimes these "good" deeds are done even if nobody's around to see them. Well if the former thing was a handjob, then this is the masturbation. You can praise yourself for being so kind and selfless, helping when no one sees you do that.
With all that in mind, I can't say I'm any different. I'm a human, so I'll have to live with it. Just don't call humans "essentually good" anymore.

...excuse me for being a nice person? Some people really like being Altruistic for Altruism's sake.