Are Atheists Uncharitable, Or Are They Disorganized?
The Grand Disequivocator
take organized good works, such as feeding the poor, adopting orphans,
or whatnot, they always bring out the copout that "atheism is not an
organization, and there is no need for people who don't have a belief
to organize."
Evidently doing good is not sufficient reason for them to organize.
Perhaps we are to assume that atheists do significant charitable deeds
as individuals. But how do we know? Where's the evidence? We don't
want to go believing something without evidence now, do we?
Meanwhile, there is plenty of evidence of atheists doing evil, or just
being anal. We know this, because for these purposes they *do* get
organized. Witness Communism, and the American Atheists.
But of course, for the activities of the religious, the atheists have
an entirely different standard. Whenever oganized religion sinks to
the same level as organized atheism, this is a point agianst religion
in favor of atheism. But the constructive acts of religious organi-
zations are ignored. I think the atheists would gladly make a big
deal of their own large-scale charities, if they had any. But they
clearly don't or else they wouldn't be reduced to the "not an organi-
zation" dodge.
Of course, organizaed religion sometimes does things almost as barbaric
as does organized atheism. But at least religion has a good side. All
atheism has is a lame excuse.
Disorganization is not a virtue. A claim to not be organized is
nothing more than a way to evade responsibility. Rather cowardly,
wouldn't you say?
maff91
<you.cant...@both.ways> wrote:
>Whenver the atheists are challenged for their evident failure to under-
>take organized good works, such as feeding the poor, adopting orphans,
>or whatnot, they always bring out the copout that "atheism is not an
>organization, and there is no need for people who don't have a belief
>to organize."
There are already secular organizations like Oxfam, Amnesty
International, Red Cross, etc. through which Atheists help in many
ways.
>
>Evidently doing good is not sufficient reason for them to organize.
See above.
>
>Perhaps we are to assume that atheists do significant charitable deeds
>as individuals. But how do we know? Where's the evidence? We don't
>want to go believing something without evidence now, do we?
Why do individual atheists want recognition? The Churches rip off the
public for one purpose and use it for another like Oral Roberts, Pat
Robertson, Jim Bakker, Jim Jones, David Koresh, et al. Why should
atheists go in for that sort of trickery?
>
>Meanwhile, there is plenty of evidence of atheists doing evil, or just
>being anal. We know this, because for these purposes they *do* get
>organized. Witness Communism, and the American Atheists.
Why are you still beating the dead horse of Communism? The Communists
would have persecuted me (I'm a libertarian) regardless of the fact
that I'm an atheist. No two atheists ever agree on anything apart from
lack of theism. American Atheists membership is only a tiny percentage
of all atheists.
>
>But of course, for the activities of the religious, the atheists have
>an entirely different standard. Whenever oganized religion sinks to
>the same level as organized atheism, this is a point agianst religion
What is this organized atheism?
>in favor of atheism. But the constructive acts of religious organi-
>zations are ignored. I think the atheists would gladly make a big
>deal of their own large-scale charities, if they had any. But they
>clearly don't or else they wouldn't be reduced to the "not an organi-
>zation" dodge.
Why should we rip off the tax payers like the religious organizations
do?
>
>Of course, organizaed religion sometimes does things almost as barbaric
>as does organized atheism. But at least religion has a good side. All
Yep. We have seen the good side. Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, 700
Club, Jim Bakker, Jim Jones, David Koresh, et al. Blatant bribing and
intimidation of elected officials to pass laws that violate the
constitution. If that is good, then I dread to think, what is going to
be bad.
>atheism has is a lame excuse.
>
>Disorganization is not a virtue. A claim to not be organized is
>nothing more than a way to evade responsibility. Rather cowardly,
>wouldn't you say?
Given your record, I think it's a virtue.
Dave Haas
says...
> Whenver the atheists are challenged for their evident failure to under-
> take organized good works, such as feeding the poor, adopting orphans,
> or whatnot, they always bring out the copout that "atheism is not an
> organization, and there is no need for people who don't have a belief
> to organize."
>
>
> as individuals. But how do we know? Where's the evidence? We don't
> want to go believing something without evidence now, do we?
>
> being anal. We know this, because for these purposes they *do* get
> organized. Witness Communism, and the American Atheists.
>
> an entirely different standard. Whenever oganized religion sinks to
> the same level as organized atheism, this is a point agianst religion
> zations are ignored. I think the atheists would gladly make a big
> deal of their own large-scale charities, if they had any. But they
> clearly don't or else they wouldn't be reduced to the "not an organi-
> zation" dodge.
>
> as does organized atheism. But at least religion has a good side. All
>
> Disorganization is not a virtue. A claim to not be organized is
> nothing more than a way to evade responsibility. Rather cowardly,
> wouldn't you say?
So what is your point? If we kill all atheists (all 4 billion of them)
things will get better? What do you think humans do? They organize!
That's how they have been able to subdue the earth. (poor earth)
Atheists join organizations just like any other group of people they just
don't all join the same organizations. The reason they don't is that
they don't all think alike or are not all stupid like some others who
join the same groups. :) Me I'm the type that won't join any group which
would have me since their standards must be extremely low.
D. Haas
Christopher A. Lee
>Whenver the atheists are challenged for their evident failure to under-
>take organized good works, such as feeding the poor, adopting orphans,
>or whatnot, they always bring out the copout that "atheism is not an
>organization, and there is no need for people who don't have a belief
>to organize."
What copout would that be, liar?
Atheism isn't an organisation, or a motivation for doing anything
at all, good or bad - it is simply the INDIVIDUAL's lack of the
property theism, and a non-event in itself. Why is this so hard to
understand?
And this lack of the property theism, is pretty much all any atheists
have got in common.
Which means that whenever an atheist does voluntary work at a non-profit
as I do we don't do it because of the non-event that is atheism. When we
contribute towards charities for the homeless or hungry as I do, we don't
do it because of teh non-event that is atheism. We do it because it's
something that bnneeds to be done regardless of whatever beliefs we may
or may not have.
Why is this so hard to understand?
And why should you attack a non-event for it?
>Evidently doing good is not sufficient reason for them to organize.
Are you really this stupid or just pretending?
>Perhaps we are to assume that atheists do significant charitable deeds
>as individuals. But how do we know? Where's the evidence? We don't
>want to go believing something without evidence now, do we?
Maybe that's because we're not loudmouthed hypocrites like you?
>Meanwhile, there is plenty of evidence of atheists doing evil, or just
>being anal. We know this, because for these purposes they *do* get
>organized. Witness Communism, and the American Atheists.
Sigh. why do so many liars equate communism with atheism? Have you
never heard of Central Americal liberation theism or even Israeli
kibbutzes?
American atheists is a SUBSET of atheists. Who felt they had together
because the son of the founder was forced to pray to somebody else's
deity in contravention of the First Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States of America - you know, the amendment that
prohibits the establishment of religion.
>But of course, for the activities of the religious, the atheists have
>an entirely different standard. Whenever oganized religion sinks to
>the same level as organized atheism, this is a point agianst religion
What "organised atheism" would that be, liar?
>in favor of atheism. But the constructive acts of religious organi-
No. They're just noithing special that atheists individually are just
as likely to do. We contribute to secular charities etc when we can.
Big hint here: secular doesn't equal atheist.
Sometimes religious organisations do constructive things. But they
tack religion onto it. Eg the Salvation Army make listening to
religion, praying etc a condition for the hungry they feed - even
when they are contracted to do that by a city.
And guess what? The homeless/hungry don't like regard that but regard
it as the price they have to pay for being fed.
And it shows that the S.A. aren't even sincere about it because if they
were really concerned about the hungry those strings wouldn't be attached.
And then there's Mother Theresa who exacerbated the very problem of the
urban poor and homeless in Calcutta by pushing the official RC position
on birth control. And who didn't give painkillers to terminal cancer
patients because suffering was good for the soul - and who only admitted
catholics to her hospice.
>zations are ignored. I think the atheists would gladly make a big
>deal of their own large-scale charities, if they had any. But they
>clearly don't or else they wouldn't be reduced to the "not an organi-
>zation" dodge.
What "dodge" would that be, liar? You know as well as I do that
all an atheist is, is somebody who isn't theist - and that's pretty
much all we've got in common. What is there to organise?
And once again, we contribute to whatever charities we like. But
we're not loudmouthed hypocrites about it like you are.
>Of course, organizaed religion sometimes does things almost as barbaric
>as does organized atheism. But at least religion has a good side. All
>atheism has is a lame excuse.
There is no such thing as "organised atheism", liar.
>Disorganization is not a virtue. A claim to not be organized is
>nothing more than a way to evade responsibility. Rather cowardly,
>wouldn't you say?
No, liar. Because wewr'e simply individuals with nothing in common except
that we don't have the predominant god-belief.
But then you knew that anyway. Get back under your bridge, troll.
Brian Westley
>Whenver the atheists are challenged for their evident failure to under-
>take organized good works, such as feeding the poor, adopting orphans,
>or whatnot, they always bring out the copout that "atheism is not an
>organization, and there is no need for people who don't have a belief
>to organize."
>Evidently doing good is not sufficient reason for them to organize.
And, since the Shriners build hospitals for children, I suppose
you will next browbeat all non-Shriners for not banding together as
"a group of non-Shriners" to also build children's hospitals.
Or you could just be a complete moron.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
sh...@theotherfoot.com
<you.cant...@both.ways> wrote:
>Whenver the atheists are challenged for their evident failure to under-
>take organized good works, such as feeding the poor, adopting orphans,
>or whatnot, they always bring out the copout that "atheism is not an
>organization, and there is no need for people who don't have a belief
>to organize."
>
>Evidently doing good is not sufficient reason for them to organize.
when you want for others, that is tyranny,
want for yourself instead.
maybe you should live up to your idealized expectation FIRST,
that way, you can prove that it can be done.
There is no odor so bad as that which arises from
goodness tainted. It is human, it is divine, carrion.
If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my
house with the conscious design of doing me good, I
should run for my life, as from that simoom, which fills
the mouth and nose and ears and eyes with dust till you
are suffocated, for fear that I should get some of his
good done to me, - some of its virus mingled with my
blood.
[ Thoreau ]
>
>Perhaps we are to assume that atheists do significant charitable deeds
>as individuals. But how do we know? Where's the evidence? We don't
>want to go believing something without evidence now, do we?
>
>Meanwhile, there is plenty of evidence of atheists doing evil, or just
>being anal. We know this, because for these purposes they *do* get
>organized. Witness Communism, and the American Atheists.
evil?
there is no evil, everything is good... even hitler thought he was doing "good"
by exterminating the jews.
as Jean Paul Sartre said, hell is other people....
and i'd like to add: evil is their GOOD deeds (ref: Thoreau quote above)
the reason churches see charity as a positive thing is because they are beggars.
so they proclaim giving as "good" because they are on the receiving end.
the reason churches engage in "charitable" practices is because they profit from
it. even the best of charites keep 50% of the take.
& finally, i'd like to say that all you GOD DAMNED XTIANS & all you GOD DAMNED
ATHEISTS should just find a battle field where you can all kill each other.
so the rest of us, who don't give a shit about your stupid fucking
culture/ethics war, don't have to put up with you sniveling, whining, and bad
logic.
ps, stop cross-posting to alt.misanthropy
Dick
>Whenver the atheists are challenged for their evident failure to under-
>take organized good works, such as feeding the poor, adopting orphans,
>or whatnot, they always bring out the copout that "atheism is not an
>organization, and there is no need for people who don't have a belief
>to organize."
Atheism is a lack of belief, not an organization. And why is it a copout?
As many have pointed out, individual atheists do good works on their
own, through other organizations.
>
>Evidently doing good is not sufficient reason for them to organize.
What organiztions have you joined solely to do good?
>
>Perhaps we are to assume that atheists do significant charitable deeds
>as individuals. But how do we know? Where's the evidence? We don't
>want to go believing something without evidence now, do we?
You want evidence, go to www.drizzle.com/~dickcr/award.htm
Then tell me what you have personally done. Then tell me what
your church has done.
I see many groups come in and feed the hungry, and shelter the
homeless. The groups range from a private school, to boy scouts,
to private companies to individuals, to mainstream and liberal
churches. The Christian denominations involved are Methodist,
Lutheran, Presbyterian, Catholic, along with Unitarian, Jewish and
even Hindu.
No Baptist, no Southern Baptist, No fundamentalist church has served
dinner to the people.
>
>Meanwhile, there is plenty of evidence of atheists doing evil, or just
>being anal. We know this, because for these purposes they *do* get
>organized. Witness Communism, and the American Atheists.
Your communist heroes do their bad deeds in the name of
communisim, not atheism.
snipparoonie.
The problem with all of this is, what have you done in the
way of helping others, I don't mean holding a door open for
someone, but go out of your way on a consistent basis
to help others. Actually sacrificed something of yourself
for this.
Or are you attempting to claim that you are good because
you call yourself a christian, and some christians do good
deeds? That doesn't work. It all comes down to what you
do yourself. Not what someone else does.
Dick Craven
new sigfile under construction.
Mark of the Beast Recipient June 1998.
Awarded by John McCoy. June 26, 1998
email: dic...@drizzle.com
Homepage http://www.drizzle.com/~dickcr
dammita...@my-dejanews.com
Disequivocator <you.cant...@both.ways> wrote a variation on a theme
crossposted twice before to unsuspecting NG's-
>
DN shows a total of (at least) 38 responses; this is what qualifies this
person to be a troll. Not ONE response *to* a response. Just attempting to
hit a nerve and then sitting by for the laughs.
>
It's not at all unlike having a bird come by and shit all over your freshly
washed automobile.
>
You, sir, are a turd. Drop your mind-bombs somewhere else. Better yet, run
towards the sea like a lemming and don't stop until you find Atlantis.
>
~dammitalltohell~
AMB (Alt. Misanthropy Bureaucracy)
>
> Whenver the atheists are challenged for their evident failure to under-
> take organized good works, such as feeding the poor, adopting orphans,
> or whatnot, they always bring out the copout that "atheism is not an
> organization, and there is no need for people who don't have a belief
> to organize."
>
> Evidently doing good is not sufficient reason for them to organize.
>
> Perhaps we are to assume that atheists do significant charitable deeds
> as individuals. But how do we know? Where's the evidence? We don't
> want to go believing something without evidence now, do we?
>
> Meanwhile, there is plenty of evidence of atheists doing evil, or just
> being anal. We know this, because for these purposes they *do* get
> organized. Witness Communism, and the American Atheists.
>
> But of course, for the activities of the religious, the atheists have
> an entirely different standard. Whenever oganized religion sinks to
> the same level as organized atheism, this is a point agianst religion
> in favor of atheism. But the constructive acts of religious organi-
> zations are ignored. I think the atheists would gladly make a big
> deal of their own large-scale charities, if they had any. But they
> clearly don't or else they wouldn't be reduced to the "not an organi-
> zation" dodge.
>
> Of course, organizaed religion sometimes does things almost as barbaric
> as does organized atheism. But at least religion has a good side. All
> atheism has is a lame excuse.
>
> Disorganization is not a virtue. A claim to not be organized is
> nothing more than a way to evade responsibility. Rather cowardly,
> wouldn't you say?
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Michael Zanussi
902092...@203.36.132.2...
>Perhaps we are to assume that atheists do significant charitable deeds
>as individuals. But how do we know? Where's the evidence? We don't
>want to go believing something without evidence now, do we?
I recently donated a vehicle to our local Catholic Social Services, and I am
an atheist, and I can prove it. Want some proof? Would you like to see the
damn receipt? Give them a call and ask if I made a donation (505.247.9521)
Don't think that just because we are atheists we don't perform charitable
deeds. Being an atheist doesn't make us self-serving, rather some of us go
out of our way to help others, just like some theists do and unlike some
theists who sit on their asses and do nothing. To equate theism with good
and atheism with evil, is, well, sheer ignorance. Think about it a little
before you write as something as stupid as you did.
--
MICHAEL ZANUSSI
freelance lighting designer & stage technician,
full-time geek in the computer industry
"La perfection est atteinte non quand il ne reste rien à ajouter,
mais quand il ne reste rien à enlever." -- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
mic...@lobo.net
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/5596
http://www.lobo.net/~michael/zdesign
Therion Ware
multitude, saying in <6q3qvk$1c4$1...@news1.lobo.net>
>The Grand Disequivocator <you.cant...@both.ways> wrote in message
>902092...@203.36.132.2...
>>Perhaps we are to assume that atheists do significant charitable deeds
>>as individuals. But how do we know? Where's the evidence? We don't
>>want to go believing something without evidence now, do we?
>
>I recently donated a vehicle to our local Catholic Social Services,
I trust it was a handcart......
[snip]
---
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
- attrib: Pauline Reage
Charles Fiterman
The Grand Disequivocator wrote:
> Whenver the atheists are challenged for their evident failure to under-
> take organized good works, such as feeding the poor, adopting orphans,
> or whatnot, they always bring out the copout that "atheism is not an
> organization, and there is no need for people who don't have a belief
> to organize."
>
> Evidently doing good is not sufficient reason for them to organize.
Our charities are things like the Cancer Society. There are enough
non religious charities for about any good purpose without adding
atheist charities. Note that American Atheists never had more than
ten thousand members and their founder took the money and ran.
When we copy your institutions we have your problems.
There are three serious problems with religious charities which
cause them to be magnets for confidence men.
First religious charities can evade the disclosure requirements of
some states. In California etc. a charity must disclose how much
it keeps for fund raising, salaries etc. but religious charities are
exempt due to the first amendment. Most refuse disclosure
under any circumstances.
Second people tend to trust those most like them and confidence
men know it. So Italians will prey on Italians and fundamentalists
on fundamentalists. Often they will disguise themselves as a member
of the group they intend to prey on. When someone approaches
me by guessing what I am (pure ethnic mutt) and uses that to gain
trust they gain instant overwhelming distrust. There are so many
charity rackets and they take such a great slice of the charity dollar
that we should approach them with all the distrust we can muster
but only after committing to spend a given amount on charity. I
would never give to an atheist charity because I would feel my
objectivity had been compromised.
Third Jesus was a religious confidence man and his teachings
are appropriate to the needs of religious confidence men.
Giving for personal sanctity rather than to do good paralyses
research into where the money goes. You got the sanctity
what more do you want. Unreasonable demands "she gave
all she had" drive off the rational. God loves the reformed
sinner more than the ordinary decent person drives away
the decent. Renounce your family, they might give sane
advice.
Kalle Helenius
The Grand Disequivocator wrote in message <902092...@203.36.132.2>...
Heh. For as lame a troll as that was, you sure carry a grand title. Is it
just me, or is a.a being invaded by more immature theist idiots nowadays
than before? This guy carries a mirror in his pocket to turn the issue 180
degrees. Sheesh!
No. 907, Shop Attendant, Clue-shop for Theists,
Logic section, laid off because lack of business, suing
EAC for severance pay. Remove number to reply.
Tony G.
>. Rather cowardly,
>wouldn't you say?
No, anymore questions.
drmonk...@my-dejanews.com
undertake organized good works, such as feeding the poor, adopting orphans,
or whatnot, they always bring out the copout that "lack of singing ability is
not an organization, and there is no need for people who don't have an ear
for music to organize."
Evidently doing good is not sufficient reason for them to organize.
Perhaps we are to assume that atonal people do significant charitable deeds as
individuals. But how do we know? Where's the evidence? We don't want to go
believing something without evidence now, do we?
Meanwhile, there is plenty of evidence of atonal people doing evil, or just
being anal. We know this, because for these purposes they *do* get
organized. Pol-pot never had a singing career, nor did Hitler.
Etc., etc., etc...
--
Dr. Monkeyspank
Simian Disciplinary Systems Institute
Sam Lopez: This is a Christian?
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Bluffs/1414
In article <902092...@203.36.132.2>,
The Grand Disequivocator <you.cant...@both.ways> wrote:
> Whenver the atheists are challenged for their evident failure to under-
> take organized good works, such as feeding the poor, adopting orphans,
> or whatnot, they always bring out the copout that "atheism is not an
> organization, and there is no need for people who don't have a belief
> to organize."
>
> Evidently doing good is not sufficient reason for them to organize.
>
> Perhaps we are to assume that atheists do significant charitable deeds
> as individuals. But how do we know? Where's the evidence? We don't
> want to go believing something without evidence now, do we?
>
> Meanwhile, there is plenty of evidence of atheists doing evil, or just
> being anal. We know this, because for these purposes they *do* get
> organized. Witness Communism, and the American Atheists.
>
> But of course, for the activities of the religious, the atheists have
> an entirely different standard. Whenever oganized religion sinks to
> the same level as organized atheism, this is a point agianst religion
> in favor of atheism. But the constructive acts of religious organi-
> zations are ignored. I think the atheists would gladly make a big
> deal of their own large-scale charities, if they had any. But they
> clearly don't or else they wouldn't be reduced to the "not an organi-
> zation" dodge.
>
> Of course, organizaed religion sometimes does things almost as barbaric
> as does organized atheism. But at least religion has a good side. All
> atheism has is a lame excuse.
>
> Disorganization is not a virtue. A claim to not be organized is
> nothing more than a way to evade responsibility. Rather cowardly,
> wouldn't you say?
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
matab
<you.cant...@both.ways> wrote:
>Whenver the atheists are challenged for their evident failure to under-
>take organized good works, such as feeding the poor, adopting orphans,
>or whatnot,
We prefere not to exploit human misery. What's wrong with that?
Would you like us to create some charity and use the funds we would
raise to support our cause?
Better leave to the organized religions this deeply immoral activity.
They are too good at it.
>Evidently doing good is not sufficient reason for them to organize.
Doing good is not and has never been reason for any
organized religion to do anything good. It's only a pretext
and a cheap way of stealing followers from other less
organized religions.
>But the constructive acts of religious organizations are ignored.
Proselitizing is not a constructive act and it is highly despicable if
it is done with the pretext of helping suffering people. And if you give
your help only to satisfy the will of an imaginary god I see no greatness
in that. I see only fear and opportunism.
>Of course, organizaed religion sometimes does things almost as barbaric
>as does organized atheism. But at least religion has a good side.
Which is?
>All atheism has is a lame excuse.
Atheism is an abstraction. It does not have any concrete
representation like organized religion. It is only a word to
describe the impossibility to conceive wishful thoughts.
>Disorganization is not a virtue. A claim to not be organized is
>nothing more than a way to evade responsibility. Rather cowardly,
>wouldn't you say?
So, tell me, what do you do to alleviate human sufferance?
Do you live in poverty because you gave all you have to the
poors or do you simply give a little of your money to your church?
Do you think your god loves hipocrisy?
Manlio
matab WA #926
Elf Sternberg
>Perhaps we are to assume that atheists do significant charitable deeds
>as individuals. But how do we know? Where's the evidence? We don't
>want to go believing something without evidence now, do we?
Atheist would not organize as atheists; atheism has no rallying
cry or organizational tenant. We do not feel a need to defend our
beliefs because we have no beliefs to defend. Quite often there's a
feeling or need to say, "I've given up on religion since it makes no
sense... now what?" so rationalist or humanist philosophies may step
in to take the place of the complex and often irrational structures of
religion, but that's not the place of atheism.
>But of course, for the activities of the religious, the atheists have
>an entirely different standard. Whenever oganized religion sinks to
>the same level as organized atheism, this is a point agianst religion
>in favor of atheism. But the constructive acts of religious organi-
>zations are ignored.
The constructive acts of relgious organizations can well be
demonstrated to be little more than recruitment drives. Mother
Teresa, that sterling example of relgious charitibility, was clearly
little more than a zealot; intensive investigation of her activities
demonstrate that she left in her wake as much misery as she
alleviated; the purpose of her missions was not to perform any medical
charity whatsoever but to preach to those too sick or desperate to get
away. A friend of mine who grew up in India once said to me, "The
Mission of Charities were Catholic and opposed birth control. One
sister told me that it was God's will that there be seven or eight
sick and skinny children than two or three well-nourished ones."
Even today, religous homeless outreaches in large cities
consist of a fire and brimstone sermon that everyone must sit through
before being allowed to eat. While they may keep the homeless alive
for one more day, it's fair to claim that they certainly have a vested
interest in their activities. The desperate, the disadvantaged, and
the malnourished have always been been great targets for shamans.
People in their moments of need can sometimes be coerced into saying,
and believing, anything.
Can we really say that religious charities are in it
selflessly, or must it be pointed out that they have as a primary
agenda the preparation of souls for heaven?
>I think the atheists would gladly make a big deal of their own
>large-scale charities, if they had any. But they clearly don't or
>else they wouldn't be reduced to the "not an organization" dodge.
Atheism has no central position around which to organize. How
hard is that for you people to understand? There are thousand of
philanthropic efforts that have no religious backing and yet manage to
hunt for cures for cancer, feed hungry children, provide comfort to
the dying, and enlighten the living. Our hands, no longer clasped
in prayer, are free to work.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg - www.halcyon.com/elf
A Decade of Usenet: On-line since August 18, 1988
I have looked into the abyss, and the abyss has looked into me.
Neither liked what we saw.
--- Brother Theodore
Michael Zanussi
35f176ab...@news.supernews.com...
>
>I trust it was a handcart......
>
Well, it was bigger than a breadbox... but no, I'm afraid it wasn't a
handcart... that I gave to my ex-fiance.
Elf Sternberg
they point to a large number of missionary exmaples that show off how
much influence their church has in a variety of fields. However,
there are thousands of charities and foundations that do good works
for the community that are in no way associated with any religious
organizations at all.
Evidently, being in a religion is not necessary to be charitable.
Everything from the United Way to the United Nations Children Fund,
from the American Cancer Society to the Minority Undergraduate
Fellowship Fund, from the National Audubon Society to Doctors Without
Borders, there exist charitable organizations which do not identify
with any one religious belief nor could they afford to, for to do so
would require identifying with a restrictive ideology that fails to
address the needs of all communities for the greater good.
Yet, if these organizations have no theistic bent, can they be
identified as atheist organizations? Certainly, members of these
organizations can identify with many different gods or no god at all;
the beliefs of individual members does not interfere with the
functioning of the organizations themselves. And unlike many
religious outreaches, no extra effort must be made to accomodate those
whose only purpose is to preach to the desperate and hungry, those who
leech off the resources being brought in to provide relief and offer
little back except potentially terrifying visions of an afterlife.
The fact is, there are many organizations "without god." Although
each founder or leader may have felt some religious compunction to
help others, the organizations themselves do not seek converts to
their ways nor require belief of their members.
When people organize they do so for a cause. Atheism is not a cause
and has no goals; individual atheists have their own reasons for
acting as they do and for the groups they join. Trying to classify
all atheists into a group and ask why "they" don't do something is
like trying to ask the same of left-handed people. They have little
to bring them together, no common experiences or beliefs. Atheists
who identify as humanist may collect in the organizations of their
choice for their own humane reasons.
If the criteria by which an organization is judged to be religious is
that its members all share the same religion, then the number of
religious charities, and their total operating budget, is a mere
pittance compared to the number of atheist ("without an establishment
of religion") charities.
Be careful of the questions you ask. They may bite back.
Threadbane
>Whenver the atheists are challenged for their evident failure to under-
>take organized good works, such as feeding the poor, adopting orphans,
>or whatnot, they always bring out the copout that "atheism is not an
>organization, and there is no need for people who don't have a belief
>to organize."
and so forth...
The hidden assumption, that religious organizations dedicate themselves to
charitable works, would have to hold true for any of this to make sense. On the
contrary, as far as I know, most organized religious groups donate a smaller
part of their revenue to charitable works than do secular charities. Indeed, the
most annoying aspect of big time charities, ala United Way, is that they give
part of the collective kitty to organized religions (or even to the
government!).
For example, the unascertainable sum that derived from Catholic and non-Catholic
gifts alike, which flooded from kind, misguided hearts everywhere, into the
coffers of Mother Teresa, might rival the current cumulative budget of the Mayo
Clinic. Her sincere sponsors' generosity was rewarded with a squalid, 200-bed
maternity ward, which I suspect would not even be licensed in many parts of the
world, while the rest of the money rests in her order's accounts or has been
forward on to the Vatican to pay for air conditioning and the restoration of
priceless art.
Organized religions spend most of the offering on themselves.
[...
>Disorganization is not a virtue.
Group insanity is not a virtue.
>A claim to not be organized is
>nothing more than a way to evade responsibility.
Joining a cult is nothing more than a way to evade responsibility.
>Rather cowardly,
>wouldn't you say?
Non sequitur.
Normally, I don't bother responding to trolls, but I saw a few familiar names on
the sucker list of respondents. Misery loves company. ;^)
...,.,,
/666; ',
////; _~ -
(//'----0-~-0
;' . `` ~ \'
, ` ' , >
;;|\..(( -; -> You can call me weak, and you can call me atheist,
;|>- `..__) but don't call me a weak atheist. #140
jc
Dick
>The Grand Disequivocator <you.cant...@both.ways> wrote >
snip
>The hidden assumption, that religious organizations dedicate themselves to
>charitable works, would have to hold true for any of this to make sense. On
> the
>contrary, as far as I know, most organized religious groups donate a smaller
>part of their revenue to charitable works than do secular charities. Indeed,
> the
>most annoying aspect of big time charities, ala United Way, is that they give
>part of the collective kitty to organized religions (or even to the
>government!).
I asked the jerk who started this thread what good works he does. And I
think this bears repeating. Fundamentlists do not do many good works,
mainstream Christian churches do, perhaps not in any great proportion
to what is donated, but the individual members, and congregations do
make an effort to help those in need. My point is that the jerk that started
this thread probably never did anything to help someone in need. But he
would have us believe that he is good because he calls himself a christian
and some christians do good works.
he would call himself christian.
>
>
>Joining a cult is nothing more than a way to evade responsibility.
>
Yeah, but they get to lie about how wonderful and responsible they
are.
Timothy Meyers
: Whenver the atheists are challenged for their evident failure to under-
: take organized good works, such as feeding the poor, adopting orphans,
: or whatnot, they always bring out the copout that "atheism is not an
: organization, and there is no need for people who don't have a belief
: to organize."
Xtians, who rarely give more than pocket change in their services.
: Evidently doing good is not sufficient reason for them to organize.
: Perhaps we are to assume that atheists do significant charitable deeds
: as individuals. But how do we know? Where's the evidence? We don't
: want to go believing something without evidence now, do we?
Heh-heh-heh. Bible.
: Meanwhile, there is plenty of evidence of atheists doing evil, or just
: being anal. We know this, because for these purposes they *do* get
: organized. Witness Communism, and the American Atheists.
Witness the christian coalition, the moral majority, the baptists, and all
the other bigoted homophobe nazis. Oh yes, Nazis, Nazis were xtian-based
as well. The only organized "evil" athiests commit is thinking and
fighting your ignorance, athiesm beckons for no prejudice nor hate.
Christianity beckons for many forms of evil and ignorance. You certainly
are thick, are you not?
: But of course, for the activities of the religious, the atheists have
: an entirely different standard. Whenever oganized religion sinks to
: the same level as organized atheism, this is a point agianst religion
: in favor of atheism. But the constructive acts of religious organi-
: zations are ignored. I think the atheists would gladly make a big
: deal of their own large-scale charities, if they had any. But they
: clearly don't or else they wouldn't be reduced to the "not an organi-
: zation" dodge.
Oh dear, it would seem we would be charitable as people and not use them
as publicity stunts. You're an idiot. Athiests are involved in many
charities, and there's nothing wrong with not slapping our "brand name" on
them for attention like ChristianityTM.
: Of course, organizaed religion sometimes does things almost as barbaric
: as does organized atheism. But at least religion has a good side. All
: atheism has is a lame excuse.
Barbaric? And how are we barbaric? And the Bible is the ultimate lame
excuse you thick headed useless excuse for a human being!
: Disorganization is not a virtue. A claim to not be organized is
: nothing more than a way to evade responsibility. Rather cowardly,
: wouldn't you say?
Yep. It certainly is. Now who claims to be organized? I don't, but who
does? Hmmm...
Think before those adorable little words pop off your forked tongue.
-tim-
Chris
>
> In alt.religion The Grand Disequivocator <you.cant...@both.ways> wrote:
> : Whenver the atheists are challenged for their evident failure to under-
> : take organized good works, such as feeding the poor, adopting orphans,
> : or whatnot, they always bring out the copout that "atheism is not an
> : organization, and there is no need for people who don't have a belief
> : to organize."
> This is complete BS. A higher PERCENTAGE of athiests are charitable than
> Xtians, who rarely give more than pocket change in their services.
> : Evidently doing good is not sufficient reason for them to organize.
>
> : Perhaps we are to assume that atheists do significant charitable deeds
> : as individuals. But how do we know? Where's the evidence? We don't
> : want to go believing something without evidence now, do we?
> Heh-heh-heh. Bible.
>
> : Meanwhile, there is plenty of evidence of atheists doing evil, or just
> : being anal. We know this, because for these purposes they *do* get
> : organized. Witness Communism, and the American Atheists.
> Witness the christian coalition, the moral majority, the baptists, and all
> the other bigoted homophobe nazis. Oh yes, Nazis, Nazis were xtian-based
> as well.
And what do we call hypocitical bigots like you? xianphobe.
This lie really gets old after a while. Upon first hearing this lame
assertion in this ng I have done some research on the subject. I have
personally discussed/interviewed German people from that era, some of
whom were nazis during the war. One of the gentlemen I interviewed, 83
yrs. old and a christian, was a nazi soldier a lieutenant in the
vermacht, He put it very nicely. He was forced to denounce God when he
was inducted into Hitler's army. "Adolph Hitler is your god now" was
another quote he remebered. All of the elderly german people I spoke
with were offended and shocked that anyone would be foolish enough to
believe such rubbish.
<snip the rest of tim's rubbish>
Chris Hill
Steve Mading
: In alt.religion The Grand Disequivocator <you.cant...@both.ways> wrote:
: : Whenver the atheists are challenged for their evident failure to under-
: : take organized good works, such as feeding the poor, adopting orphans,
: : or whatnot, they always bring out the copout that "atheism is not an
: : organization, and there is no need for people who don't have a belief
: : to organize."
: This is complete BS. A higher PERCENTAGE of athiests are charitable than
Actually it isn't. The argument that has been going round and round
for a while here is whether or not atheists are orginized around
causes. What he says above is true, kinda. Atheists are not UNITED
behind any one cause. Where he makes his asinine insulting assumption is
where he goes from this to saying that no atheist cares about anything.
There is a huge range of possiblities between "all atheists believe in
the same causes" and saing "no atheists believe in any causes". He
completely ignored "Some but not all atheists believe in cause X, some
but not all atheists believe in cause Y, some but not all atheists
believe in cause Z, etc..."
--
Steve Mading: mad...@execpc.com http://www.execpc.com/~madings