Atheistic charity organizations?

[Jocko_VT]

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

Because, one outcome of what you’re calling “an accidental collection of atoms…” is the desire to bother helping. Fortunately, we don’t really get a choice in desiring to help, or all of you who demand a reason to help, rather than just recognizing it as a consequence of being human, would apparently refuse to do so.

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.

“organized body of atheists.” Why would such a thing exist? It’s like an organized body of people who do *not *drive Toyotas. Is there an organization of people who do *not *believe in Zeus who provide charity on the basis that they do not believe in Zeus? No.

Some atheists organize so they can know they are not alone in a world of people who accuse them of immorality simply on the basis that they don’t believe there’s a magical man in the sky, but other than that, why would they? Atheism is not a philosophy. It can’t be drawn on for anything. It’s simply a lack of belief. People don’t do things for what they do *not *believe in, but instead for what they *do *believe in.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jocko
**
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. **

If we are not random and we are not designed … what are we?

 

[puzzleannie]

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

and we do not need a discussion that starts out with false premises

 

[Jocko_VT]

jocko
**
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. **

If we are not random and we are not designed … what are we?

The best answer: We are human beings and all that entails. We create meaning in life out of what we are. We are self-aware, thinking moral animals.

Something more to what you may be wanting: We are among the most recent developments of 3.5-plus billion years of evolution. It’s not as if a Boeing 747 appeared out of a junkyard after a tornado. It’s 3.5 billion years of natural selection that “created” out of some pre-cellular life form every bit of life today–plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, etc. It’s pretty cool, and it fills me, personally, with a sense of wonder.

A little further: We are among the most recent developments (though what the meaning of time is in this context is a bit shady) of matter bound by the the laws of physics and other stuff I don’t know about and other stuff no human knows about 13-plus billion years after the big bang. To quote Joni Mitchel’, “We are stardust.”

Even further??: I have no idea what we are. And although that fills me with wonder and existential angst and a strange meloncholic loneliness, I’m a self-aware, moral thinking human being, and all that entails, and, for the moment, that’s enough.

 

[Rascalking]

and we do not need a discussion that starts out with false premises

I’m sure that in the formal, “by the rules of parlimentary procedure”, your right-but in this discussion, they didn’t need a lecture, so-don’t give them one.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Jocko
**
Even further??: I have no idea what we are. And although that fills me with wonder and existential angst and a strange meloncholic loneliness, I’m a self-aware, moral thinking human being, and all that entails, and, for the moment, that’s enough. **

Perhaps at a later moment that won’t be enough.

 

[Jocko_VT]

Perhaps at a later moment that won’t be enough.

To paraphrase Thoreau: Under a God which condemns any unjustly, the true place for a just man is to be condemned.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Jocko
**
Under a God which condemns any unjustly, the true place for a just man is to be condemned. **

Only a nontheist could imagine such a god.

 

[Sair]

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

Fair point - although it’s also fair to say that a lot of believers seem to think this is inadequate justification!

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

I’m guessing that first of all the ban on threads discussing atheism has been relaxed somewhat (though apparently not officially repealed) so maybe people are taking the opportunity to vent some spleen. Curiously, though, I noticed an article in my local paper (in Perth, Western Australia) that the Catholic Church here (and perhaps nationwide) is undertaking a big evangelising push, primarily targeting unbelievers, using community outreach and social networking in addition to the usual channels. Of course, this it obviously motivated by charitable impulses and not falling church attendance…

 

[Sair]

The best answer: We are human beings and all that entails. We create meaning in life out of what we are. We are self-aware, thinking moral animals.

Something more to what you may be wanting: We are among the most recent developments of 3.5-plus billion years of evolution. It’s not as if a Boeing 747 appeared out of a junkyard after a tornado. It’s 3.5 billion years of natural selection that “created” out of some pre-cellular life form every bit of life today–plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, etc. It’s pretty cool, and it fills me, personally, with a sense of wonder.

A little further: We are among the most recent developments (though what the meaning of time is in this context is a bit shady) of matter bound by the the laws of physics and other stuff I don’t know about and other stuff no human knows about 13-plus billion years after the big bang. To quote Joni Mitchel’, “We are stardust.”

Even further??: I have no idea what we are. And although that fills me with wonder and existential angst and a strange meloncholic loneliness, I’m a self-aware, moral thinking human being, and all that entails, and, for the moment, that’s enough.

Beautifully put, Jocko

Certainly, we may not have all the answers to the insistent ‘why’ questions, but if we are driven by the impulses entailed in our being self-aware, moral, thinking human beings, do we need more justification for our inclination to help our fellow beings? (those of us who experience such inclinations, of course…)

 

[Jocko_VT]

Jocko
**
Under a God which condemns any unjustly, the true place for a just man is to be condemned. **

Only a nontheist could imagine such a god.

I didnt imagine him. Christians told me about him. But, you get my point, I think.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Jocko

**The best answer: We are human beings and all that entails. We create meaning in life out of what we are. We are self-aware, thinking moral animals. **

This is not an answer to the question … if not by design, if not by random circumstance … how? Poetic rambling does not get you off the hook.

 

[Jocko_VT]

Jocko

**The best answer: We are human beings and all that entails. We create meaning in life out of what we are. We are self-aware, thinking moral animals. **

This is not an answer to the question … if not by design, if not by random circumstance … how? Poetic rambling does not get you off the hook.

Actually, your question wasn’t “how,” but “what” are we.

I gave you three answers to the “What” question. What’s your answer to what we are? I gave an an answer. You cited the best one in my opinion. As I said in the original post, the one you wanted, I think, came next. Why take this one quote out of context? Respond to the actual argument, if at all. You’re the one who want to reduce what humans are to a mere accident. I think we’re much more, with or without god.

How are we? Evolution.

Further back? I don’t know how life first came to be. I can only say that I’ve seen no evidence that it had to do with anything other than natural processes. I have no problem with this lack of knowledge–in fact, like many things, this is very interesting to think about and actually provides some wonder in life–and I see no need to make up myths or elaborate old myths to explain away the mysteries of life.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Jocko

You said:

**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. **

I asked the following question:

**If we are not random and we are not designed … what are we? **

So I’ll ask again: how are we able to “misrepresent evolution as arguing that we are just a random arrangement of atoms”? If it is not random, nor designed, **how **do the atoms get to produce us?

You deftly turned the question into a literal “what” rather than offering another “how” which is understandable since there is no other how you could come up with … apparently.

You have painted yourself into a corner and try to leap over what you have painted by saying things like “I have no idea what we are. And although that fills me with wonder and existential angst and a strange meloncholic loneliness, I’m a self-aware, moral thinking human being, and all that entails, and, for the moment, that’s enough.”

Intellectual suicide.

 

[Jocko_VT]

Jocko

You said:

**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. **

I asked the following question:

**If we are not random and we are not designed … what are we? **

So I’ll ask again: how are we able to “misrepresent evolution as arguing that we are just a random arrangement of atoms”? If it is not random, nor designed, **how **do the atoms get to produce us?

You deftly turned the question into a literal “what” rather than offering another “how” which is understandable since there is no other how you could come up with … apparently.

You have painted yourself into a corner and try to leap over what you have painted by saying things like “I have no idea what we are. And although that fills me with wonder and existential angst and a strange meloncholic loneliness, I’m a self-aware, moral thinking human being, and all that entails, and, for the moment, that’s enough.”

Intellectual suicide.

You’re being dishonest, now. You asked what. I answered that question. Now you want to change it to how. The answer is evolution. Now I think you want to know how evolution works? You really should think before you talk. You certainly shouldn’t make comments like “intellectual suicide” and “paint yourself into a corner” or say “there is no other how you could come up with” given your poor pose which has led me to answer question you ask instead of questions you think. You owe an apology–will you provide it?

When a rubber ball falls straight down toward the center of gravity and hits a perfectly flat surface, it bounces straight back through the trajectory whence it came. Is this just a random? No. Matter works in particular ways. If the faster lions tend to eat more and, thus, reproduce more than the slower lions, is this random? No. If the smarter proto-human reproduces more than the less intelligent proto-human, is this random? No. What don’t you get? Are mutations random? Yes. If that’s the entire focus of your argument, then you’ve already missed the boat!!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

You’re being dishonest, now.

**When a rubber ball falls straight down toward the center of gravity and hits a perfectly flat surface, it bounces straight back through the trajectory whence it came. Is this just a random? No. Matter works in particular ways. If the faster lions tend to eat more and, thus, reproduce more than the slower lions, is this random? No. If the smarter proto-human reproduces more than the less intelligent proto-human, is this random? No. What don’t you get? Are mutations random? Yes. If that’s the entire focus of your argument, then you’ve already missed the boat!! **

Again, you are describing reality rather than explaining it. You have no explanation other than to say that’s just how evolution works.

You are deeply confused. You cannot see the difference between how a “what” can serve several functions … including the substitute for a “how,” which is what is was used for in my post.

No apology is required because you are puffed up with your own conceited logic and name-calling. I’m “dishonest”? Look in your mirror, dude.

 

[Jocko_VT]

You’re being dishonest, now.

**When a rubber ball falls straight down toward the center of gravity and hits a perfectly flat surface, it bounces straight back through the trajectory whence it came. Is this just a random? No. Matter works in particular ways. If the faster lions tend to eat more and, thus, reproduce more than the slower lions, is this random? No. If the smarter proto-human reproduces more than the less intelligent proto-human, is this random? No. What don’t you get? Are mutations random? Yes. If that’s the entire focus of your argument, then you’ve already missed the boat!! **

Again, you are describing reality rather than explaining it. You have no explanation other than to say that’s just how evolution works.

You are deeply confused. You cannot see the difference between how a “what” can serve several functions … including the substitute for a “how,” which is what is was used for in my post.

No apology is required because you are puffed up with your own conceited logic and name-calling. I’m “dishonest”? Look in your mirror, dude.

First, I answer “what are we?” Then, I answer “how are we?” Now, you want to know “How is how?” Are you getting at the infinite regress that lets you offer up the explanation that itself needs no explanation?

Again, you can’t explain what you’re wanting to know, and you blame it on everyone else. You are having trouble asking the question, and when others answer the question you asked, you get upset. You use brash rhetoric like “intellectual suicide,” and “paint yourself into a corner.”

You’re to big to apologize? You’re to big to admit that you didn’t word your question well? You’re to big to admit that you were unnecessarily aggressive with your rhetoric? Fine. Go on and enjoy yourself. When you figure things out, I’m completely happy to respond to a real question that asks what it wants to know. Until then, I’m going to step aside, because all you’re going to do is make personal attacks, make misrepresentations of other people’s arguments, and then pretend to to be the victim. I’m not interested in your game. I’ve played it too many times before.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Jocko

**You’re to big to apologize? You’re to big to admit that you didn’t word your question well? You’re to big to admit that you were unnecessarily aggressive with your rhetoric? Fine. Go on and enjoy yourself. When you figure things out, I’m completely happy to respond to a real question that asks what it wants to know. Until then, I’m going to step aside, because all you’re going to do is make personal attacks, make misrepresentations of other people’s arguments, and then pretend to to be the victim. I’m not interested in your game. I’ve played it too many times before. **

Yeah. It shows.

I will make it a point not to ask you any more questions or read any more of your posts.

Now you can go back to your poetry.

 

[Rascalking]

This is getting sort of mean. Can we go back to being nice please?

 

[minkymurph]

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?

I personally don’t know of any atheistic/secular charitable organizations. I don’t know of any atheistic/secular organizations who offer post abortion council, I don’t know of any atheistic/secular societies who go out to African/Asian countries and set up relief programs, or set up secular schools which they fund. As far as I know, these are funded to a large extent by Christian organizations both Protestant and Catholic. I don’t know of any secular/atheistic organizations who go out to some of these countries with lorry loads of condoms paid for by them, to promote the use of contraception in these countries, or set up education programs in that respect. If any of the atheists on the forums here want to contradict that, I will be happy to hear what they have to say.

I do feel that atheist promote their ideology as the ‘better’ way and the more ‘intelligent’ way. If so, what are they doing to address problems outlined above other than - ‘don’t believe in God, be like me and it will all be OK?’ It’s all very well to say, ‘if only the Pope would allow condoms. This would stop the spread of AIDS.’ What are they doing about it? Have they set up health clinics for AIDS victims and drug addicts worldwide?’ If not, why not? Can they not address these difficulties so much better than religion by promoting there is no God? The reason why I think they don’t do this is because they concentrate their efforts in the skeptical, ‘educated’ west were it is so much easier to make recruits. Not only that, I feel they hijack faith schools in my part of the world who are doing a great job of educating children. They want them to go on doing this job, just as long as they don’t teach religion. Should children, and adults, be discouraged from giving to church based charitable organizations? If so, do atheists have a plan to replace them and carry on the same work? What is the plan? It’s a bit like politics. It’s very easy to sit in opposition and criticize. However, when you get elected to power and you run the country and it becomes you’re responsibility to solve the problems you criticized the previous government for, it becomes a different matter. I remember someone telling me of a revolutionary group who wanted to seize power in a South American banana republic. They were successful. However, they had a guy in their ranks who was an explosives expert whose job was to blow up a lot of bridges. When the revolutionaries won and came to power, he became minister of the environment and his first job of office was to rebuilt all the bridges he had previously blown up.

The moral of the story? It’s all very well to promote a certain ideology, but when you have to do something about all the problems, it’s a different matter and you can’t blame anyone else if it goes wrong!