Theists save people, atheists are tree huggers?

[Tero]

In many forums people come out asking Where are the atheist charities. I was thinking about the charitable work they do in Haiti and other disaster areas.

Then it struck me, do they then ignore the environment as a worthwhile tatget? Are those British Nazi loving Pope hating people more likely to support environmental causes than the theists?

With the small number of UU people I met here locally, we find a small number doing both. But are there wider trends? The more fundamentalist they are, the more likely God will have to take care of snow leopards?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Doctors Without Borders?

I spent 10 hours on my feet last Sunday helping direct traffic at the Endangered Wolf Center (and keeping lazy bastards out of the handicapped parking.)

[mistermack]

It's not comparing like with like.
The major religions have an inbuilt advantage when it comes to charitable organisation.
They have organisations and wealth built up over many hundreds of years in some cases, as well as infrastructure in most countries of the world. They also have a reservoir of labour who only work one day a week, so they've got plenty of time on their hands to organise.

They also have an ulterior motive, in many cases. Their aid comes at a price, they want the chance to indoctrinate the people they supposedly are helping, and to gain access to the people in power, in the developing countries.

Atheists are not known for this kind of organised activity. They are generally more independent minded.
Most of their giving is done on an individual basis, and quite often, it's religious organisations that take the credit.
Maybe we should organise more, but I can't see it happening, for the reasons above.
.

[Tero]

I personally am going to quit giving money other than a small amt at work to a charity that is well known and monitored. The rest, in my cheapskate ways, will go to conservation organizations. Green Peace I never made up my mind about, I prefer to act locally.

[Feck]

There we go thinking that Atheists should some how compete with religion ,like we are all of the same faith .
Not believing in a god just means that , nothing else.
If every town and city had lots of atheist meeting houses ,if families were brought up together in that sort of setting then I think there would be atheist charities. Besides look at animal charities most of them are secular . Is there an assumption that atheists don't give to the Red Cross for example ? because that's rubbish .

[Pappa]

I think the atheist charity argument is a red herring. The majority of charities are non-religious. Simple as that.

[Thinking Aloud]

I think the atheist charity argument is a red herring. The majority of charities are non-religious. Simple as that.

More-or-less what I was about to say. Any charity that doesn't wear a religious badge is atheist in the same way that atheism is a religion. Or something.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think the atheist charity argument is a red herring. The majority of charities are non-religious. Simple as that.

More-or-less what I was about to say. Any charity that doesn't wear a religious badge is atheist in the same way that atheism is a religion. Or something.

Note: The Christian Children's Fund recently changed its name to The Children's Fund.

Take THAT, atheists!

[mistermack]

If I suddenly had millions to give away, the only charity I would be interested in would be one that supplied free condoms in third world countries.

What could possibly do more for the planet, than a reduction in the human birth rate? One condom could do the work of a half dozen electric cars.
.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If I suddenly had millions to give away, the only charity I would be interested in would be one that supplied free condoms in third world countries.

What could possibly do more for the planet, than a reduction in the human birth rate? One condom could do the work of a half dozen electric cars.
.

Logic fail.

[mistermack]

Logic fail.

As well argued as ever.

[Dory]

Let's think about it. Many atheists are scientists. I would think that atheists who spend their life to the advancement of humankind do far more "charity work" than those Christians can begin to think.

[Dory]

It's not comparing like with like.
The major religions have an inbuilt advantage when it comes to charitable organisation.
They have organisations and wealth built up over many hundreds of years in some cases, as well as infrastructure in most countries of the world. They also have a reservoir of labour who only work one day a week, so they've got plenty of time on their hands to organise.

They also have an ulterior motive, in many cases. Their aid comes at a price, they want the chance to indoctrinate the people they supposedly are helping, and to gain access to the people in power, in the developing countries.

Atheists are not known for this kind of organised activity. They are generally more independent minded.
Most of their giving is done on an individual basis, and quite often, it's religious organisations that take the credit.
Maybe we should organise more, but I can't see it happening, for the reasons above.
.

Ah well said.

[Tero]

Here is an outside discussion on it
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum ... ymous/6084

Imagine that equivalent as something representative of Atheism, something that doesn't have to convince people to convert to Catholocism, and from there Atheists can say "we're just as charitable, just as caring, and just as concerned for the wellbeing of mankind." But so far I don't see that example.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Logic fail.

As well argued as ever.

You broke it, you fix it.