Atheistic charity organizations?

[dostoyevskyfan]

I may just be ignorant, but I can’t think of a single charity organization that was founded by atheists to assist the impoverished, homeless, or less fortunate. Sure there are “secular charities” but that’s not the same. Can anyone think of just one organization? Most of the “non-profit” organizations established by atheists seem devoted to spreading atheism (advertising on buses during the xmas season “do good for goodness sake”). This seems a little bit ludacris considering that most atheists would rather spend money “debunking mythology” instead of spending it on food for people starving in our very own streets.

If there exists such an organization(say an atheistic organization devoted to finding loving homes for abandoned babies), then it is my hypothesis that it would have been formed out spite. In other words, as a way to “prove” that atheists are “more moral” than theists. To me this in and of itself would be immoral.

It has been statistically proven that religious people are more likely to give to the poor than nonbelievers.

What do you think?

 

[Rascalking]

I was actually just thinking the same thing. Atheists would be better people if they admitted that even though they don’t believe in Christianity, a world without it would be devastating.

 

[StOwen]

This kind of thinking is exactly the same as the spiteful kind you described. We should not be out to prove that we are ‘better’ or ‘nicer’ than other people.

I have heard of atheistic charities before, but I imagine most charitable atheists just donate to secular charities instead of seeking out an atheist charity.

Also I have heard the claim that when Christians do good works they do so in expectation that they will be rewarded for it in heaven and are therefore doing so for selfish reasons. I don’t accept this but saying atheists would only be charitable in order to prove a point is just as degrading!

I was actually just thinking the same thing. Atheists would be better people if they admitted that even though they don’t believe in Christianity, a world without it would be devastating.

Please explain to me how that would that make them ‘better people’.

 

[Rascalking]

This kind of thinking is exactly the same as the spiteful kind you described. We should not be out to prove that we are ‘better’ or ‘nicer’ than other people.

I have heard of atheistic charities before, but I imagine most charitable atheists just donate to secular charities instead of seeking out an atheist charity.

Woah now. Relax.

No one is saying were better or nicer. It’s just an observation.

It would make them better people to admit Christianity has positive benefits because anytime you can admit a idealogical opponent has some good qualities you grow as a person.

 

[StOwen]

Woah now. Relax.

No one is saying were better or nicer. It’s just an observation.

I am relaxed. Effectively the ‘observation’ is saying we’re better.

It would make them better people to admit Christianity has positive benefits because anytime you can admit a idealogical opponent has some good qualities you grow as a person.

Ok

 

[Rascalking]

I am relaxed. Effectively the ‘observation’ is saying we’re better.Ok

Actually, the observation that there are way more Christian charities than athiest charities is true.

 

[StOwen]

Actually, the observation that there are way more Christian charities than athiest charities is true.

So we should slap ourselves on the back and remember that we are better than atheists? Also:

most charitable atheists just donate to secular charities instead of seeking out an atheist charity.

 

[Rascalking]

Well, I can stick my tonuge out too. How do you explain all these studies that show Christians/the religious support more charities than athiests?

 

[StOwen]

Well, I can stick my tonuge out too. How do you explain all these studies that show Christians/the religious support more charities than athiests?

I don’t even want to deny that. My point is that as Christians we are called to act with humility, not to remind ourselves or others that more charities are run by Christians than atheists.

 

[Rascalking]

I don’t even want to deny that. My point is that as Christians we are called to act with humility, not to remind ourselves or others that more charities are run by Christians than atheists.

My point is that Christians are allowed to re-state the obvious-that atheists, as individuals, might be (and I am sure are) wonderful people, it’s also important to raise the point the OP might have been trying to say-Christians do more to help out people than are atheist brothers.

Just because we’re Christians doesn’t mean we have to be meek and humble, never arguing against atheists.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Just because we’re Christians doesn’t mean we have to be meek and humble, never arguing against atheists.

I would be in agreement with this statement, based on the following:

The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.
- 2 Timonthy 2:24-26

 

[GIR]

Why bother helping an accidental collection of atoms brought about by eons of purposeless chance?

I’m sure there are charitable atheists, but (and I think this is what the OP was trying to say) is that there isn’t an organized body of atheists drawing from their atheism itself the impetus for their philanthropy, excepting, of course, groups consciously trying to one-up Christian charity.

 

[Rascalking]

Why bother helping an accidental collection of atoms brought about by eons of purposeless chance?
.

This really made me chuckle.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Why bother helping an accidental collection of atoms brought about by eons of purposeless chance?

I’m vaguely reminded of the ST:TNG episode of “Home Soil”, where the silicon-based life form called humans “ugly bags of mostly water.”

 

[puzzleannie]

I Most of the “non-profit” organizations established by atheists seem devoted to spreading atheism (advertising on buses during the xmas season “do good for goodness sake”). This seems a little bit ludacris considering that most atheists would rather spend money “debunking mythology” instead of spending it on food for people starving in our very own streets.

what basis do you have for making such a global judgement? you have absolutely no way of knowing what individuals who profess no belief in God or organized religion do or do not do in the way of organized or personal charitable giving. How can you possibly make such a statement? Who gave you access to their personal financial information?

Many atheists simply because they have rejected moral prescriptions and creeds of organized religion have been forced to come up with their own set of ethical standards, some of which are surprisingly strict and well thought out.

 

[Rascalking]

what basis do you have for making such a global judgement? you have absolutely no way of knowing what individuals who profess no belief in God or organized religion do or do not do in the way of organized or personal charitable giving. How can you possibly make such a statement? Who gave you access to their personal financial information?

Many atheists simply because they have rejected moral prescriptions and creeds of organized religion have been forced to come up with their own set of ethical standards, some of which are surprisingly strict and well thought out.

Cut the OP some slack. They don’t need a lecture.

 

[RainbowNight]

Why bother helping an accidental collection of atoms brought about by eons of purposeless chance?

Trying to fix “your God’s” mistakes

 

[Jocko_VT]

I may just be ignorant, but I can’t think of a single charity organization that was founded by atheists to assist the impoverished, homeless, or less fortunate. Sure there are “secular charities” but that’s not the same. Can anyone think of just one organization? Most of the “non-profit” organizations established by atheists seem devoted to spreading atheism (advertising on buses during the xmas season “do good for goodness sake”).

“do good for goodness sake” is a good message–not atheistic.

This may be what you’re looking for: givingaid.richarddawkins.net/

This seems a little bit ludacris considering that most atheists would rather spend money “debunking mythology” instead of spending it on food for people starving in our very own streets.

You jumped the shark here. What proportion of atheists spend money debunking mythology, and what percentage spend money helping people in need, and how much do they spend on each? You must know the answer to make that statement, so please answer it. Fact is, you’re absolutely wrong, and this is just a hateful and libelous statement for which you should apologize.

If there exists such an organization(say an atheistic organization devoted to finding loving homes for abandoned babies), then it is my hypothesis that it would have been formed out spite. In other words, as a way to “prove” that atheists are “more moral” than theists. To me this in and of itself would be immoral.

I imagine that’s true. Not that they would be proving themselves to be more moral, but that it would just be to make the point that atheists do, in fact, give. If it’s immoral, it’s only a response to an immoral pressure by foolish others who insist that atheists are bad.

But, you’re missing something here. Why would atheists form an atheist organization to help others? That would be like stamp collectors forming an organization to help others. Why would they do that?

Most charities–and I’m guessing here–are formed simply as a charity, without any sort of religious tie, for the sole purpose of charity; or are formed through some organization of like-minded members whose philosophy places them in a position where a charitable endeavor is a normal outgrowth the organization. Atheists are not an organization of like-minded members. The only thing common to atheists is that they are atheists, which means they don’t believe in god(s). In contrast, Catholics aren’t merely theists, but have a whole theology and christology and mariology, etc., in common that sets them apart not only from others, generally, from from other theists and other christians, in particular.

It has been statistically proven that religious people are more likely to give to the poor than nonbelievers.

That may be true. I’m not really convinced, though. Where’s the data? Give me a citation or a link. is it “give to the poor” or is it “give to charitable organizations”? And, is it just giving to the poor, or is it all charitable gifts?

FYI: “statistically proven” isn’t a good phrase to use.

I’m curious why so many threads in here are so hell-bent on taking atheists to task.

 

[kaid100]

Why bother helping an accidental collection of atoms brought about by eons of purposeless chance?

Because, being an-accidental-collection-of-atoms-brought-about-by-eons-of-purposeless-chance myself, I know that I would like help if the situation was reversed. By placing myself in the other person’s shoes, I can see what a reasonable way to act would be.

On a different issue, evolution is not solely about chance, but largely about natural selection as well. The “chance” element of mutations is only part of the theory.

 

[Jocko_VT]

The “chance” element of mutations is only part of the theory.

Indeed. And not really the important part. It’s really only important to people who want to misrepresent evolution as arguing that we are just a random arrangement of atoms.