Atheistic charity organizations?

[Jocko_VT]

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!

There are secular organizations. The question is about atheist organizations, in particular. No one has explained why there would even be an atheist organization of this sort.

Atheists in the US, at least, defend themselves. They don’t evangelize. Were it not for the constant push for religion in public school class rooms and similar issues, you’d likely hear little or nothing from atheists. As it stands, atheists are constantly told that they are immoral, that they can’t be moral unless they believe in god(s), that they can’t be good people without a belief in god(s), and the like.

This thread, a some others on here, is just another example of accusing atheists of being less. For anyone to suggest that the problem is that atheists are telling people that atheism is better than theism, particularly in this context, is the very definition of irony.

 

[Jocko_VT]

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

I walked away from that one. I’m not interested in it either.

 

[minkymurph]

There are secular organizations. The question is about atheist organizations, in particular. No one has explained why there would even be an atheist organization of this sort.

I feel that’s for atheists themselves to explain. Are you saying you see no need for atheists to have such organizations?

Atheists in the US, at least, defend themselves. They don’t evangelize. Were it not for the constant push for religion in public school class rooms and similar issues, you’d likely hear little or nothing from atheists. As it stands, atheists are constantly told that they are immoral, that they can’t be moral unless they believe in god(s), that they can’t be good people without a belief in god(s), and the like.

I can’t comment on you’re part of the world. I can say that in my part of the world, the is big push to have religion removed from the National Curriculum. We hear a lot from atheists on this topic, and many others. As far as evangelizing goes, it all depends on you’re definition of evangelizing. I suspect my definition of it may be different to yours.

I can understand you’re difficulty with people telling you are immoral, that they can’t be moral unless they believe in god(s), that they can’t be good people without a belief in god(s), and the like. That does smack of feelings of superiority which is unjust.

This thread, a some others on here, is just another example of accusing atheists of being less. For anyone to suggest that the problem is that atheists are telling people that atheism is better than theism, particularly in this context, is the very definition of irony.

The reason I mentioned this is because that is what some atheists have told me. They have told me the reason they would like me to accept there is no God is because they want me to think for myself , which they think I can’t do, and I would be much happier if I thought for myself instead of being told what to think. However, I take you’re point that maybe I’m tarring all atheists with the same brush which is unfair.

 

[Jocko_VT]

I feel that’s for atheists themselves to explain. Are you saying you see no need for atheists to have such organizations?

I am saying that. Atheism is not a thing…it’s a lack of a thing. For Atheists to do something in the name of atheism would be like people who don’t drive Harley Davidsons doing something in the name of not driving harley davidsons! Why would they do that? Instead, people who don’t drive Harleys just do what normal people do in life. For example, there are catholic groups organized for the soul purpose of bringing relief to people in need. Should non-catholics organize such a group? Why would non-catholics organize in the name of non-catholocism? Non-catholocism is not a thing. Likewise, atheism is not a thing, it’s a lack of a thing–belief in god(s).

So, if an atheist wants to go through an organization to give to charity, plenty of options are available.

On the other hand, Christians, as I interpret the Bible, are compelled, to some degree, to be charitable. Thus, for a christian organization to develop centered around charitable deeds, or to develop and just happen to do a little charity work, makes a lot of sense.

A key point here is that just because atheists don’t organize atheists groups for charity does not mean that atheists are not charitable!!

I can’t comment on you’re part of the world. I can say that in my part of the world, the is big push to have religion removed from the National Curriculum. We hear a lot from atheists on this topic, and many others. As far as evangelizing goes, it all depends on you’re definition of evangelizing. I suspect my definition of it may be different to yours.

I don’t know your part of the world. In the US, there’s a separation of church and state, and rather than having children indoctrinated into any particular religion in public schools, atheists believe they are constitutionally protected. In other words, public schools should not be religious. There are plenty of other issues like this, and it’s a whole other debate that I don’t want to open up here. Suffice it to say, if religious people would stop trying to thrust religion into the public sphere (e.g., intelligent design in public school science curriculum, school prayer, etc.), I don’t think you’d hear much from atheists in the US.

I can understand you’re difficulty with people telling you are immoral, that they can’t be moral unless they believe in god(s), that they can’t be good people without a belief in god(s), and the like. That does smack of feelings of superiority which is unjust.

Thank you. It’s extremely common here.

The reason I mentioned this is because that is what some atheists have told me. They have told me the reason they would like me to accept there is no God is because they want me to think for myself , which they think I can’t do, and I would be much happier if I thought for myself instead of being told what to think. However, I take you’re point that maybe I’m tarring all atheists with the same brush which is unfair.

I don’t doubt at all that there are atheists who make arguments like that. In a dialogue with evangelical christians over the merits of evolution vs. young-earth creationism, I, myself, might make the argument that the young-earth creationism perspective requires that one not think for him/herself. On the whole, though, I sincerely doubt that atheists are peculiar in any way in how the judge others’ beliefs or lack thereof. Likely, there are cultural differences in this matter, though, as you’ve suggested.

 

[minkymurph]

I am saying that. Atheism is not a thing…it’s a lack of a thing. For Atheists to do something in the name of atheism would be like people who don’t drive Harley Davidsons doing something in the name of not driving harley davidsons! Why would they do that? Instead, people who don’t drive Harleys just do what normal people do in life. For example, there are catholic groups organized for the soul purpose of bringing relief to people in need. Should non-catholics organize such a group? Why would non-catholics organize in the name of non-catholocism? Non-catholocism is not a thing. Likewise, atheism is not a thing, it’s a lack of a thing–belief in god(s).

It doesn’t have to be done ‘in the name’ of atheism. It can be done simply because it needs to be done. One thing atheists have often said to me, is why doesn’t the Pope do something about the spread of AIDS - like allowing people to use condoms? What I would say is, why don’t you do something? Why don’t you form a charitable organization and to out to these countries, educate people, and generate funds to provide free contraception?
You don’t have to do it in the name of Catholicism. You can do it simply out of concern for the health and education of others.

So, if an atheist wants to go through an organization to give to charity, plenty of options are available.

Of course they can. However, they seem to stop short of becoming actively involved. We could all adopt the attitude, 'oh, someone else is doing something about that so I don’t need to. I do enough by giving money to other people who are prepared to put themselves out to a greater extent.

On the other hand, Christians, as I interpret the Bible, are compelled, to some degree, to be charitable. Thus, for a christian organization to develop centered around charitable deeds, or to develop and just happen to do a little charity work, makes a lot of sense.

True, but what if all seen the light and stopped believing in God? Who would do it then and why?

A key point here is that just because atheists don’t organize atheists groups for charity does not mean that atheists are not charitable!!

Of course it doesn’t mean they are not charitable. However, I’ve heard many atheists criticize the work of certain charitable institutions because they are faith based. In which case, would it not be better if they took up this sort of work because they wouldn’t be doing it for the purpose of indoctrinating people.

I don’t know your part of the world. In the US, there’s a separation of church and state, and rather than having children indoctrinated into any particular religion in public schools, atheists believe they are constitutionally protected. In other words, public schools should not be religious. There are plenty of other issues like this, and it’s a whole other debate that I don’t want to open up here. Suffice it to say, if religious people would stop trying to thrust religion into the public sphere (e.g., intelligent design in public school science curriculum, school prayer, etc.), I don’t think you’d hear much from atheists in the US.

Your right. It is a whole other debate which we shouldn’t really open up here. Suffice to say that as far as I’m concerned, education in the US is a matter for the people of the US because in my personal opinion, other countries do not have the right to interfere in how another country is run.

I don’t doubt at all that there are atheists who make arguments like that. In a dialogue with evangelical christians over the merits of evolution vs. young-earth creationism, I, myself, might make the argument that the young-earth creationism perspective requires that one not think for him/herself. On the whole, though, I sincerely doubt that atheists are peculiar in any way in how the judge others’ beliefs or lack thereof. Likely, there are cultural differences in this matter, though, as you’ve suggested.

Certainly I would recognize the fact that there are different ‘brands’ of atheist - some who are more extreme in their views than others. I wouldn’t like to be lumped in with some people who have extreme religious beliefs that differ from my own just because I believe in God. I do know some atheists who obviously have an axe to grind with religion, yet claim they don’t, and voice opinions under the guise of deep concern for child welfare and human rights. It’s these are the atheists that I would say - if you are so concerned about child welfare and human rights why are you not actively involved in promoting promoting child welfare and human rights? It’s all very well to shout about the failings of religion in this regard, but what are you doing if you are so concerned about these things? It reminds me of a women’s group a friend and I once got involved with. They were too busy sitting about bitching about men and, ‘he did this to me, and he did that to me’ to offer anything positive or actually do something about real issues for other women.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Mink

It’s these are the atheists that I would say - if you are so concerned about child welfare and human rights why are you not actively involved in promoting promoting child welfare and human rights?

The American Humanist Association, largely composed of atheists, not only does not defend the rights of the unborn, but actively promotes the right of the mother to kill her unborn child at the taxpayers’ expense.

action.americanhumanist.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=5680

 

[minkymurph]

Mink

It’s these are the atheists that I would say - if you are so concerned about child welfare and human rights why are you not actively involved in promoting child welfare and human rights?

The American Humanist Association, largely composed of atheists, not only does not defend the rights of the unborn, but actively promotes the right of the mother to kill her unborn child at the taxpayers’ expense.

action.americanhumanist.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=5680

Yes, it’s really a bit of a contradiction to the claim some atheists make that they are desperately concerned about children and human rights.

 

[Big_Charles_D]

gatesfoundation.org/Pages/home.aspx

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gives away approximately 1,000,000,000 dollars every year to many different organizations and groups that seek to reduce suffering and to aid the poor and. Sick both by improving technology access in impoverished countries and by doing research to come up with answers to The problems p them selves such as finding a vaccine for malaria and aids. Both bill and melinda gates are affirmed atheists who have nothing to do with religion and want nothing to do with religion. I apologize for any grammatical or spelling errors as I am using my cell phone and voice recognition.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Big Charles
**
It’s these are the atheists that I would say - if you are so concerned about child welfare and human rights why are you not actively involved in promoting promoting child welfare and human rights?**

Please identify the source by which Bill and Melinda Gates identify themselves as atheists.

Thank you.

 

[Jocko_VT]

It doesn’t have to be done ‘in the name’ of atheism. It can be done simply because it needs to be done.

Atheists do this. They just don’t do it as members of atheist organizations. I have many options for giving, including giving money through secular or religious organizations. I don’t need an atheist organization through which to provide help, nor is one needed, given that there are organizations already.

One thing atheists have often said to me, is why doesn’t the Pope do something about the spread of AIDS - like allowing people to use condoms? What I would say is, why don’t you do something? Why don’t you form a charitable organization and to out to these countries, educate people, and generate funds to provide free contraception?
You don’t have to do it in the name of Catholicism. You can do it simply out of concern for the health and education of others.

I’ll sidestep the “Pope” issue.

Again, though, why would atheists form an atheist organization? It would be like people who don’t like watching professional tennis forming an organization. Why would a group organize around an idea like “We don’t like watching professional tennis”? And why would they suddenly think, let’s start an organization of people who don’t like watching professional tennis so that we can help needy people? They probably wouldn’t.

Of course they can. However, they seem to stop short of becoming actively involved. We could all adopt the attitude, 'oh, someone else is doing something about that so I don’t need to. I do enough by giving money to other people who are prepared to put themselves out to a greater extent.

Atheists are not actively involved in secular charities? This is the point. They are involved. They just don’t form an atheist group to get involved.

Analogy: Why don’t atheists form a restaurant chain and become actively involved in the restaurant business? But atheists likely are active in the restaurant business, only they don’t see any need to organize an atheist restaurant chain.

True, but what if all seen the light and stopped believing in God? Who would do it then and why?

Given the need that would appear, there would inevitably be more secular organizations emerge to help. Most of the people who suddently fell away from the church would still want to give to the needy, because the desire to help is universal.

Of course it doesn’t mean they are not charitable. However, I’ve heard many atheists criticize the work of certain charitable institutions because they are faith based. In which case, would it not be better if they took up this sort of work because they wouldn’t be doing it for the purpose of indoctrinating people.

Again, they have taken up the work. They just don’t do it through atheist organizations. If atheists didn’t do the work at all, then they should probably shut up about religious charities proselytizing through charity. But they do the work, and they feel it’s a bit dodgy to provide food and water with a little Jesus.

Your right. It is a whole other debate which we shouldn’t really open up here. Suffice to say that as far as I’m concerned, education in the US is a matter for the people of the US because in my personal opinion, other countries do not have the right to interfere in how another country is run.

Agreed.

It’s these are the atheists that I would say - if you are so concerned about child welfare and human rights why are you not actively involved in promoting promoting child welfare and human rights?

But, they are actively involved–I’m starting to repeat myself, aren’t I?

It’s all very well to shout about the failings of religion in this regard, but what are you doing if you are so concerned about these things? It reminds me of a women’s group a friend and I once got involved with. They were too busy sitting about bitching about men and, ‘he did this to me, and he did that to me’ to offer anything positive or actually do something about real issues for other women.

I have an axe to grind with religion. I won’t deny it. It’s not about charity, though. It’s about things we’ve discussed already (so many believe religion is the only way to live a good and moral life, or to raise good and moral children, etc.).

I think we agree. But, while you suggest atheists need to form an atheist organization to become actively involved, I say there’s no rationale for forming an atheist organization of that sort, and that atheists can be and are actively involved through other routes. In fact, I can personally guarantee you that at least some of the people working for some religion-based charities are atheists!!

And, btw, I just googled “atheist charities,” and it looks like there are some atheist charities. I haven’t looked into them, but maybe there are such things, despite my own arguments.

 

[Jocko_VT]

Yes, it’s really a bit of a contradiction to the claim some atheists make that they are desperately concerned about children and human rights.

Well, since you said that!!

I don’t think this is any more of a contradiction than for someone to argue that they are desperately concerned about AIDS in Africa (or anywhere else) and then argue that it’s not okay to use condoms. Is the Catholic Church concerned about children? I know some stories that suggest otherwise!!!

All this simply to say that it is *not *a contradiction. These are complex issues, with several factors involved, and should be treated as such by anyone who wants to have a serious conversation about them.

In the US, abortion is so completely politicized that it’s impossible to have a serious conversation about it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Big Charles

With apologies for the erroneous quote in my last post, I should ask again.

Both bill and melinda gates are affirmed atheists who have nothing to do with religion and want nothing to do with religion.

Where do Bill and Melinda say they are atheists and want nothing to do with religion?

Thank you.

 

[minkymurph]

But, they are actively involved–I’m starting to repeat myself, aren’t I?

Yes, but you do it so well!

I have an axe to grind with religion. I won’t deny it. It’s not about charity, though. It’s about things we’ve discussed already (so many believe religion is the only way to live a good and moral life, or to raise good and moral children, etc.).

Well at least you’re honest about it. There’s a big debate going on in my part of the world at the minute concerning state funding of faith schools. That issue aside, what I get annoyed about is atheists coming on the radio arguing for withdrawal of state funding from faith schools and saying it’s not because they have an axe to grind with religion, or because they object to faith schools, when everyone knows that it is.

I think we agree. But, while you suggest atheists need to form an atheist organization to become actively involved, I say there’s no rationale for forming an atheist organization of that sort, and that atheists can be and are actively involved through other routes. In fact, I can personally guarantee you that at least some of the people working for some religion-based charities are atheists!!

OK, I surrender! As there’s no white flag smilie, this is the best I could do :bowdown:
Seriously though, you’ve made your case. Being honest I’m a bit biased because a lot of atheists live off the state, spend all day in the pub, see the world through a haze of booze and cannabis fumes, and all in all contribute little to other people’s lives while criticizing those who try to, tell me I couldn’t possibly be intelligent because I believe in God, and much better off my children would be if I stopped teaching them about God because it’s not true. Not that I’m likely to take advice on child-rearing from them.

I take it you’re not that ‘brand’ of atheist?

And, btw, I just googled “atheist charities,” and it looks like there are some atheist charities. I haven’t looked into them, but maybe there are such things, despite my own arguments.

Well that’s kind of Murphy’s Law isn’t it?

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

I’ve spent years in intellectual debate with atheists, long before they felt the need to “organize” around certain “cult” or “counter-culture” figures such as Richard Dawkins, or the “bright” movement. It is safe to say that I have my “PhD” in atheism. Not to mention I was one, awhile back. I think I probably know more about your lack of belief and its** implications **than you do.

I think that atheists need to “organize” can be explained by means of evolutionary theory. They are a minority group who feel marginalized; their very existence is threatened by theism and its rapid rate of reproduction (theists are propagating themselves and increasing more frequently and more numerously than atheists—atheists are going extinct according to Dinesh D’Souza) and from an evolutionary perspective, there is a greater survival rate among animals who cooperate rather than operate or attempt to exist independently. This is my hypothesis as a Catholic who believes in “theistic evolution”; a belief which has been deemed perfectly acceptable by our Pope.

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

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

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 I require an apology, it is because I was unclear and was typing very quickly. For this I apologize. There was no malice in my statements. I was referring to a specific organization, “The American Humanist Association” and their $40,000 campaign to advertise atheism on public buses during the Christmas season. It was the only “atheist organization” that came to mind at the time that I started this thread. I have since followed your link (thank you), googled “atheist charities”, and have become aware of other forms of “organized atheism”.

Here is a news link:
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,450445,00.html

The name “American Humanist Association” escaped me at the time I started this thread. I was hoping someone would realize that I was talking about one specific incident and not about “atheism” in general. I guess no one picked up on what I was thinking about at the time.

“Do good for goodness sake” was one of the advertising slogans that appeared on one of the public buses while theists were engaged in the “season of giving” - christmas - the time when most christians give the most to the poor or needy. I wanted to point out the hypocrisy of that specific atheist organization, AHA, not all atheists. Since it is highly unlikely that any atheists on this message board belong to that organization, I don’t see how anyone could be offended.

“Doing good for goodness sake” is a contradiction in terms. Some people believe, and still believe, that human sacrifice is “good”. If there is no objective “good” then there cannot be a “goodness sake” or “good” moral acts; only arbitrary amoral personal preferences.

Lastly if they were truly a “humanist” organization, then they would have spent that 40k on people starving in the streets of DC (where the organization is located) or at the bare minimum advertising for secular organizations that improve humanity, or advertising for a program to biologically improve the species such as eugenics or Euthanasia for physically handicapped or intellectually disabled persons.

But, you’re missing something here. Why would atheists form an atheist organization to help others?

I think I’ve already partially explained this. In short, the answer is evolution. We are genetically programmed to operate in groups because it increases our survival chances. Human beings are social animals. It also follows that people who hold a minority opinion or idea, in this case the assertion that “there is no God or gods” or “it is highly likely that there is no God or gods” are more likely to unite for evolutionary reasons. If atheists did not unite, then there is a greater chance that “atheism” will go extinct. In terms of the Natural Selection of ideas, it is a “genetically inferior” idea to theism, specifically Roman Catholicism. Atheism will inevitably die off just like the Cuban ground sloth because it is intellectually untenable and is not fit for survival in the intellectual environment.

That would be like stamp collectors forming an organization to help others. Why would they do that?

What you are doing here and in various other posts in this thread (harley davidsons, toyotas, etc) is committing the logical fallacy of false analogy. Atheism, and (it should be) non-stampcollectors are not analagous in that the object of the lacking is in no way similar.

For example, someone who chooses NOT to drive a toyota, or to drive a harley, or to collect stamps, first recognizes that toyotas, harleys, and stamps DO EXIST, and they simply do not like them. It is a personal aesthetic choice. Secondly, nonstampcollectors, non-harley drivers, and non-toyota drivers are not a minority, and their existence, or the existence of their idea, is in no way threatened. They therefore have no evolutionary reason to unite or cooperate. Unlike atheism.

Someone who becomes an atheist USUALLY does so because they think it is true that there are no gods or God. They do not become atheists because they first recognize that God EXISTS, and then decide that they do not like Him (although I suspect that there are some who do).

 

[minkymurph]

Well, since you said that!!

Oooooh! Now that’s tit for tat. Don’t you just love debating with atheists because it’s so much fun! :slapfight:

I don’t think this is any more of a contradiction than for someone to argue that they are desperately concerned about AIDS in Africa (or anywhere else) and then argue that it’s not okay to use condoms. Is the Catholic Church concerned about children? I know some stories that suggest otherwise!!!

From you’re point of view no. To a Catholic it is. I can guess what stories you mean and I could you some stories about atheists lack of concern for children! We could debate all day about condoms. As a gesture of goodwill, shall we drop the issue and call it quits?
:aok:

All this simply to say that it is *not *a contradiction. These are complex issues, with several factors involved, and should be treated as such by anyone who wants to have a serious conversation about them.

In the US, abortion is so completely politicized that it’s impossible to have a serious conversation about it.

Well, abortion is a very emotive issue as well. I do think there is a need for serious dialogue on the topic and it is quite difficult to achieve this because it’s a concoction of several very strong but opposing points of views, a dash of extremist views and cupful of political agenda. A good mix for a ‘time bomb’ of a debate.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

Jocko

I asked the following question:

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

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’ve clearly got him, but a little harsh don’t you think? I’m not sure you articulated your argument properly however. I think the term “intellectual dishonesty” or “lack of intellectual integrity” would have been more appropriate eh?

Here’s my theistic evolutionary perspective:

You narrowed it down to, irrespective of the truth of evolution (you bypassed a process we call evolution):

1. Everything is designed and therefore not random
2. Everything is random and therefore not designed

I think this is a false dichotomy. The evolutionary process is not entirely random, although the genetic mutations which then allow for the process of natural selection are…

On the other hand, no honest student of evolutionary theory would say that random element of genetic mutations and the process of natural selection are *mutually exclusive.

• The randomness of genetic mutations is essential to the veracity of the theory!!!

Evolution is not random in the sense that a 747 emerged from a junkyard overnight, or Monkeys given keyboards were able to eventually type all of the works of Shakespeare. It happened over a very long period of time, however; the length of time that it took does not effect the bigger question: “What purpose??”

Evolution as an explanatory device only serves to explain evolution. It is tautological.The purpose of evolution is so that organisms become more complex and therefore become more fit to survive, and then continue to adapt and survive in the future. The purpose of evolution is then, the continued existence of our species. Existence is allowed to continue because of evolution. Tautology. Without evolution, we would not exist. The scientists job is over.

Now the philosopher. “Why does existence exist?” The process of evolution had a beginning. Matter existed (which eventually became the matter that composes humans) before the process of evolution began. The philosopher’s job begins.

Either the matter which existed before the process of evolution began arrived in existence by 1)random means…out of sheer chance 2)It was purposefully put there by a designer.

In other words:
Everything is ultimately random or it ultimately is not. It cannot be both. This has nothing to do with the process of evolution. Which is it?

 

[Jocko_VT]

. I think I probably know more about your lack of belief and its** implications **than you do.

Are you serious?

.I think that atheists need to “organize” can be explained by means of evolutionary theory. They are a minority group who feel marginalized; their very existence is threatened by theism and its rapid rate of reproduction (theists are propagating themselves and increasing more frequently and more numerously than atheists—atheists are going extinct according to Dinesh D’Souza) and from an evolutionary perspective, there is a greater survival rate among animals who cooperate rather than operate or attempt to exist independently.

Unless you want to show atheism to be genetic, then you can’t invoke evolution as an argument. Personally, I’d not advise taking this route in your argument, though.

This is my hypothesis as a Catholic who believes in “theistic evolution”; a belief which has been deemed perfectly acceptable by our Pope.

Theistic evolution differs, on a scientific level, not at all from the scientific theory of evolution.

. There was no malice in my statements.

I’ll take you at your word.

.“Doing good for goodness sake” is a contradiction in terms. Some people believe, and still believe, that human sacrifice is “good”. If there is no objective “good” then there cannot be a “goodness sake” or “good” moral acts; only arbitrary amoral personal preferences.

That’s not the point of “do good for goodness sake,” though. You know that.

.Lastly if they were truly a “humanist” organization, then they would have spent that 40k on people starving in the streets of DC (where the organization is located) or at the bare minimum advertising for secular organizations that improve humanity,

the same arguments could be made about almost any religious group, so either accept that you are wrong here, or that the same argument applies to everyone.

…or advertising for a program to biologically improve the species such as eugenics or Euthanasia for physically handicapped or intellectually disabled persons.

Are you kidding me? Do you realize what you’re suggesting here?

.I think I’ve already partially explained this. In short, the answer is evolution.

Between this comment and the one immediately above, all you’re explaining is that you have zero understanding of evolution, and that you are a hateful person.

.What you are doing here and in various other posts in this thread (harley davidsons, toyotas, etc) is committing the logical fallacy of false analogy. Atheism, and (it should be) non-stampcollectors are not analagous in that the object of the lacking is in no way similar.

For example, someone who chooses NOT to drive a toyota, or to drive a harley, or to collect stamps, first recognizes that toyotas, harleys, and stamps DO EXIST, and they simply do not like them. It is a personal aesthetic choice. Secondly, nonstampcollectors, non-harley drivers, and non-toyota drivers are not a minority, and their existence, or the existence of their idea, is in no way threatened. They therefore have no evolutionary reason to unite or cooperate. Unlike atheism.

Your evolution analogy is the only false analogy here.

.Someone who becomes an atheist USUALLY does so because they think it is true that there are no gods or God. They do not become atheists because they first recognize that God EXISTS, and then decide that they do not like Him (although I suspect that there are some who do).

Well, that’s the typical argument.

 

[Jocko_VT]

While I’ve enjoyed, somewhat, my time in this thread, I’m bowing out, now.

The hatefulness I’ve run into is nothing short of shocking. I am referring to comments made by both Charlemagne and Dostoyevsyfan. When the only purpose of your comments are to try to diminish the other person rather than to actually make an argument, you place yourself in an ugly, and might I add un-christian, position. To suggest that an atheist’s money would be well spent funding some sort of eugenics program is horrific. To call someone else conceited when you refuse to ask a clear question is itself conceited. Why I, as an atheist, must be the one to point this out in a catholic forum, is part of the reason I have an axe to grind with Christians (self-proclaimed). Why do you choose not to be kind and courteous?

Take care.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

Before you claim “superior debate skills”, march out of the room slamming the door behind you in a furious rage claiming “martyrdom”, I’d just like to say that I’ve made great efforts not to offend you personally, and I’ve really enjoyed our exchange of ideas. In fact, I am little saddened that you have decided to leave. I feel like you have much to contribute…but hey at least you had the last word right? Even if you claim to be “ignoring” me, we both know that you will read my response…and will be very very compelled to respond. Maybe you’ll resist that very strong temptation, maybe you won’t. Either way I wish you the best.

Please note that I’ve never attacked you personally, only your ideas. That’s what this forum is for—to challenge eachother’s ideas. There are no ad-hom attacks in my responses to you. If you feel somehow connected to “atheists” in general, somehow bonded by your lack of belief, then I could understand why you would be upset. But by your own logic, have I also offended people who lack other things? such as collecting stamps, driving toyotas, or riding harleys? Think about it.

If you have an axe to grind with Catholicism, then with all due respect sir, it needs sharpening first.

Are you serious?

It was an educated guess or speculation…with special emphasis on “educated”.

Unless you want to show atheism to be genetic, then you can’t invoke evolution as an argument. Personally, I’d not advise taking this route in your argument, though.

You misunderstood what I was saying. I was using evolution as a means to explain human behavior, not atheism. Specifically, the social reason why some atheists may try to unite in the face of the extinction of their idea, “There is no God.”, or extinction of their lack of an idea, “God.” But that aside…

Earlier in this thread, or maybe it was in another thread, I saw you try to explain “morality” by means of evolution. It is an explanatory medium (evolution) that either Richard Dawkins, or maybe one of his minions, espouses to explain morality. I know this for a fact. Do you believe morality is genetic? Do you hold yourself to the same standards that you expect from other people?

I’ve seen people attempt to explain “homosexuality” via evolution. It has not yet been shown that there is a “homosexuality” gene, although it may prove to be polygenic (more than one gene involved). What do you think about this?

Lastly, do you think you have some type of “patton” on the intellectual property that is the theory of evolution, and that others can’t use it?

Theistic evolution differs, on a scientific level, not at all from the scientific theory of evolution.

I agree, except I was not sure if you were aware of the Pope’s approval. Belief in the theory of evolution in some protestant versions of christianity is grounds for ex-communication. I guess you knew that. Obviously the Pope would not approve non-theistic evolution. It also follows that someone who subscribes to theistic evolution believe that the entire process is not random, but purposeful. Even if we don’t know why God created giraffes with short necks that eventually died off by means of natural selection, He still did it for some reason that may be beyond our understanding.

I’ll take you at your word.

A gentleman and a scholar!!

That’s not the point of “do good for goodness sake,” though. You know that.

I am a gifted person with respect to my analytical and logical skills. I am not saying this to be arrogant, it’s just a fact…I inherited a gene, I suppose.

I do not “know that” (whatever you were referring to). I pointed out a logical contradiction and then explained it. You did not point out an error in my logic.

the same arguments could be made about almost any religious group, so either accept that you are wrong here, or that the same argument applies to everyone.

Let me respond this way. I don’t believe in fairies or unicorns. If I were to spend, or raise $40,000 to advertise my lack of belief in fairies or unicorns, would that be logical? Or let me put it this way, would it be good money management, an effective allocation of funds?

The same argument doesn’t apply for theists advertising their position because they hold a positive belief system which they believe is true. Advertising a negation of a belief is nonsensical.

Are you kidding me? Do you realize what you’re suggesting here?

I am not suggesting it at all. I am only parroting the practice of multiple atheistic regimes in the 20th Century. All done in the name of “secular progress” or “improvement” of the human animal. If existence is ultimately negated by the oblivion of death, the place from which no traveler has ever returned, then there is only the Nietzschean “will to power”, and those who stand in the way (the weak).

Between this comment and the one immediately above, all you’re explaining is that you have zero understanding of evolution, and that you are a hateful person.

Don’t assume it makes a…(you know how that goes).

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

Your evolution analogy is the only false analogy here.

An analogy is a comparison between two things or ideas that have a commonality. One usually makes an analogy in argumentation to prove a point. I used evolutionary theory to explain a phenomenon in human behavior. I did not compare evolution to anything.

I did not make an analogy. You also did not defend your analogies between atheism and nonstamp collectors, non-toyota drivers, and non-harley riders. I’ll just assume that you’ve conceded defeat…unless you respond.

Have an enchanted evening sir. Thank you for visiting Catholic Answer Forums. I would be delighted if you were to come back.