I work for a charity that raises over 100 million every year and has no religious affiliation at all.
It is not an atheist charity, the term is meaningless.
Atheism is not a religion.
I would think it just depends on how the charity projects it's image. Look at Red Cross as far as I know they are not a religious charity but they do pretty well.
I'm reluctant to donate to any charity that may use some of the money to support religious nonsense. For example, I have mixed feelings about the salvation army due to their overtly religious mission statement. I'm sure they do good work, but I'm not comfortable with that aspect of the organization. I would prefer giving to charities that are explicitly secular.
I don't think people that want to give to help the needy would be smart to give it all to their own church. Their clergymen that direct the sermons and church affairs draw a salary, the church itself needs money to be maintained, and the charity the church does is not always on display for you to see where the money goes. I understand giving to your church at a level that you feel is appropriate but you should know where the money goes.
Better to give to a charity that shows how much they spend on direct support of the needy instead of not showing the numbers. NPO personnel for a lot of charities draw larger salaries than you'd think. Just because the organization itself is not-for-profit doesn't mean that the people working for the organization don't draw large salaries and/or see other major benefits.
I don't think I have ever seen a church that just won't give those numbers. Most put those numbers somewhere really easy to find like on the weekly bulletin. What churches are not making this data accessible?
Well, your tithes may be apparent but I've been to at least a dozen churches in my lifetime and they never said how much the individuals in the parish drew for their salary and how much was collected for anything other than specific charities in which there were "special" collections.
No just the poor. You just have to be willing to give to anyone you feel is in need. Your religious leanings have nothing to do with it. It's pretty silly how Atheists are constantly in need of strokes to their egos.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
ROFL, you apparently haven't seen a camel or a needle recently (or camels were extremely small and needles very large in the time of Yeshua). Or, your jesus sounds just plain ol' wishy-washy.
Jesus is a mythical figure. Zero proof the guy even existed. I don't see why you felt the need to mention him. Helping our fellow man is a survival trait. It's why we are a SOCIAL species.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
it was not an uncommon name in the area at the time
likely like all folklore the stories were selected from stories from several people called Jesus and likely some by other names
and then the church in Rome later on voted on which stories made the bible
kinda like American Idol
The is no historical record of anyone fitting the biblical Jesus. None of the historical sources which were around during the time he is supposed to be alive mention him at all. All "historical" records Christians like to use as proof are from around 200 years AFTER his supposed death. Believe me I have done the research.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"Bulls**t. We are are all basically the same. We are civil/peaceful as long as things are good. When the s**t hits the fan that all changes. It then becomes survival of the fittest. This is why the human species has survived this long. We have a strong survival/self-preservation instinct." -Norman619,
A bit off topic, but that translation is likely wrong. I have seen it translated as a rope through the eye of a needle. It's hard enough to get a thread through a needle, and a rope would be almost impossible.
I believe He stated this because money can become addicting, and many people are always looking for more even when they have more than they could ever need.
A lot of the modern bible is likely mistranslated. The current bible is translated from other translations. I'm fairly sure the original teachings of Christianity/Jesus have been lost in the countless translation the book has gone through. Even today I will see Spanish - English translations, both are languages I am fluent in, which are wrong.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I have to disagree, you can still get the old testament in the original hebrew, and the new testament in the original greek.
Most modern translations come from both the orignal languages, and if you know how to read those languages you can compare the original to the translation. That is what people who go to Bible school do, and those that make many of the modern translation.
"The" current Bible? There are dozens of major modern translations in English alone.
Most of the modern translations come from copies in the original languages (but not the original manuscripts), tested in some cases against hundreds of other copies and ancient translations. Textual criticism is actually a pretty well-developed science, as is early Christian studies. No, we haven't lost the early teachings of Christianity. While we don't know everything, we know quite a bit about the early times.
Right, which is different than how the wealthy acquire it today how exactly?
I know what you are going to say, but if you really really think about it, that includes me and you and our made in a sweatshop sneakers and phones. How often do you take into account the amount of pain and misery your luxuries cause? You better hope to your god there isnt a hell because if there is WE ARE ALL GOING :) see you there mwahahahahahahahahah ahem
10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
Notice it says the "love of money", not just "money".
He follows that part with "but in god all things are possible". The disciples react by asking "how can we get to heaven then?" to which he gives the normal "grace of god" reply..
Picture this, rich men in that era were denied nothing. He was saying that the "freest" person can not even make it to heaven except via god.
Replace the line about the needle and the camel with "Not even the wealthiest man could afford to enter heaven". The rest of the conversation makes sense. Its clear that the parable was intended to demonstrate impossibility but was not directed at the "rich" so much as the most enabled.
"You just have to be willing to give to anyone you feel is in need. Your religious leanings have nothing to do with it."
That's the way it SHOULD be. But given the current political climate thanks to the GOP )you know - the Jesus loving group), the word "charity" seems to be a four-letter-word.
I'm paraphrasing, but Bill Maher said it best about the GOP who think that "Obama is not a brown man wants to heal the sick and feed the poor for free - you're thinking of JESUS" screams volumes about conservative hypocrisy.
You're right, your religious leanings, or lack thereof, should not have anything to do with helping with charity, but when you get people like the Cancer Society refusing a $250,000 because the so-called "religious right" deliberately have people scared/misinformed about who the atheists are, then the need to stand up and explain becomes necessary.
Who cares what Bill Maher says. Also, your conclusion about the Cancer Society story is just an assumption that the atheists like to think is what happened. No one knows except the Cancer Society.
One of the largest charitable organizations in the world is the Lutheran church. Ironically Lutherans believe that you cannot buy your way into heaven with good deeds.
This is not the place for a religious history lesson so I'll back off. But you really need to learn more about the catholic church at the time of the reformation.
Keep in mind that at the same time Luther and others were protesting against abuses in the Catholic Church, people within Catholicism were doing the same thing. The Catholics had their own internal Reformation that happened right around the time that Protestantism was forming.
I know a small number of Lutherans and you would know never they belonged to any religious group unless you know them very well. Yet, as you pointed out, they are incredibly charitable and for the right reasons. Why can't other religions be like that?
I'm really surprised this article didn't mention the Atheist presence on Kiva.org. If you take a look at these numbers, http://www.kiva.org/community the atheist community has loaned a total of $6.2 million, the next closest group is the christian community, raising $3.6 million. With 19,000+ members in the group, it's larger than Kiva's 2nd-5th groups combined.
Good Grief. These atheist organizations (geared toward atheists) gather pennies compared to religious charities. (There are also non-religious charities that are doing very good, but they are not atheist either, and most of their donors are religious folks anyways) The only reason why they even try these alternative means, is because they have been bombarded time and again for being useless. Atheism, beyond the brain stimulation, has been, and still remains, useless for the most part. This article provides one example of Atheism trying to find ways to be credible.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Atheism is useless? Have you checked what religion has been up to recently? How much damage has been inflicted in the name of one god or another? Have you heard of people motivated by atheism doing ethnic cleansing, crashing planes into buildings, or preaching that condoms are evil in lands where the aids infection rates are sky high?
I think your right, religion isn't useless, that would be putting it's value to high, I think religion is actively harmful to humanity.
If you visit any jail and find out if at least even one Atheist exists, all your assumptions and premesis will be all wrong! Do You supposed that is the place all holy people are hanging out?
First atheist are very under represented in jail, at least in the countries where atheism isn't a crime. Second, what?
Somehow you turned my statment into a claim that atheist are all righteous beings, missing the point of what i was saying entirely. I was speaking of belief as a motivator for wicked actions, and that lacking the belief atheist have less motivation to commit atrocities.
For instance, unless I miss my guess, your flavor of iron age fairy tale tells you in Leviticus that gay people should be stoned to death. This motivates some of your fellows to attack maim and kill homosexuals. I and my ilk however completely lack that motivation because we don't believe your book of small mindedness is divenly inspired. I still have many of the other motivations you do, including the desire to be moral, and occasionally the desire to do bad things. The difference between a theist and an atheist is that we don't have religion as a motivator. All of the actions I mentioned were religiously motivated.
Point of education, you have employed a logical fallacy called a Non Sequitur. Literally your statement doesn't follow from your premise. Another good example "I see geese, therefore Jesus is my savior". Do have a good day,
Well, so-called atheistic charities have nowhere to go but increase in numbers.
"Here. Have a free meal on us. Isn't it a great day that...random, uncaring natural processes created so that we could evolve from primordial sludge and have no true meaning to our existence?!? Oh, by the way, you are nothing but a complex set of collocated, mindless chemicals, meaning your free will and consciousness are mere illusions. Yay! Atheism!"
lol You are an idiot, plain and simple. Atheists don't go through their daily lives thinking like this or rambling on about evolution. All it means to be an atheist is that you lack a belief in the existence of a god. Many atheists probably don't even understand evolution that well, and they don't really need to, either.
The fact that you are talking trash about a charity, simply because it's grounded in secularism is very telling of you. Then again, so does every stupid f**king thing that you say.
OR.. you can say: "Here. Have a free meal on us. Even though you will have to sit through a sermon to better understand - while through no fault of your own - you were BORN a sinner and must accept the [blackmailing/conditional] love of Jesus Christ in order to get into the kingdom of heaven. Oh, and while we are at it, both Mother Theresa and every pope has demanded that you appreciate your humility even though they both take in billions of dollars every year which could end world hunger dozens of times over but need to live in a lifestyle of luxury in Vatican city."
Hmmm.... I've volunteered at a religious based and funded "soup kitchen" many times. Except for a brief prayer before the meal there was nothing mentioned about the faith at all.
Why doesn't the Government sell off DC and give it to the poor of the country?
There is no larger Charity in the world than the Catholic Church. They spend a fortune preserving the art and making it freely available for the world to see.
I agree with you but to be fair, it is every humans responsibility to end world hunger. The simple fact is that it is possible yet we do not do it. Mainly because we have posers who say they want to help people and really do not. Also, we have those who care only for themselves and obviously those people should just be terminated.
Why does life have to have some kind of meaning for you? Why does it matter so much too you? Do you realize that we are all subject to reality interpretation with in the confines of human thought? What does that mean?
Well for a layman like yourself, that means that it is very possible that the human brain is not even capable of thinking or knowing the true meaning of life. So, if that is true, what would it even matter?
Oh and by the way (since we know your not really that intelligent), I want to point this out too you..
"Oh, by the way, you are nothing but a complex set of collocated, mindless chemicals, meaning your free will and consciousness are mere illusions." <=== your conclusion makes no logical sense at all. As a matter of fact, the opposite would be true. If by definition we were 'complex set of collocated, mindless chemicals' then it would stand to reason that our free will and consciousness (our perception) are very much real!
Something to keep in mind when throwing around all the stats. When they say 'charity' while passing around the plate at church, that 'charity' also includes the church that is doing the collecting. 100% of the money collected by that church may go to building more infrastructure, a bigger parsonage for the preacher, a new jet airplane, whatever. Very little of the money collected by churches actually goes to feeding any hungry people or taking care of the poor. Most of it goes to operating expenses and the preachers salary. However, this money still get's lumped under the heading of 'charity'. Giving to your cult does not really make you 'good', it more means you were properly indoctrinated.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
People of the world, We need to work together in peace to keep the Earth alive - And this better happen because God's good Home, that little place in the Universe where people and all the creatures of Nature can exist is in process of going extinct by our own hand in oil+gas..
No amount of religiosity is going to give cover for what we have done, not now.. The very words of the Bible, the Koran and of Man to be Good are written with reverence and reference to things of Nature, of Mother Earth for whom and to which we all owe our very existence, and hopefully respect for our fathers and those who fought the little battles out in history making the planet habitable and keeping a record of life in our very existence at the cellular level.. A mighty force holding thermodynamic heat exchange within range for life to exist on a planetary scale in a shielded place from high energy radiation in the vast fabric of space..
Who thinks it an accident, all these things that are going on are happening by accident in the 'vacuum' of space, the discovery of the large and small made possible by science, by curiosity, by generosity and hard work.. Right now the internet, the technical ability and industrial capacity - is it an accident economic fractional reserve system and globalization made possible happens to have signs of terminal failure at right the same time as the atmosphere goes unstable in it's temperature and biological systems come under trauma?
This is a test, a test of our fiber, do we stand with the weakest among us to work together.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"People of the world, We need to work together in peace to keep the Earth alive "
We are not a peaceful species so we will never achieve world peace until we can satisfy everyone's needs. As long as we have to compete for resources we will fight each other.
What if we had all the resources we needed for everyone to be comfortable already? What if a small group of people then took a very large portion of those resources for themselves and another very large (like a billion) people were left with much much less than they needed to even live? In that purely hypothetical scenario when or how could we ever achieve a state where we dont need to compete for resources?
But then again I guess you could say that those billion or so people that did not have adequate resources just didnt know the meaning of work and were waiting for handouts....
The first problem is that you have to define what comfortable is... since its subjective. Next, you need to destroy liberty, since you want to confiscate others property. After you get rid of liberty you'll need to deal with the continue problem of unlimited wants and limited resources... this can be done through rationing or lowering the quality of goods and service.
You now have to deal with countries that don't want to give up their resources for the greater good. This could be resolved through war. However what to do with the people unwilling to work and contribute to the great society? Hmmm. Maybe put them in camps.
This person dreams of communism. While I agree communism is the ideal system it doesn't work for us. It always fails due to the fact that it works against human nature. We are not selfless enough by nature to make that system work. The traits that have helped us survive for so long also make it difficult for us to live peacefully in very large groups.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Maybe we can try and be a little selfless, just a little, every generation. Just try it you know and see what happens.
Nothing crazy like helping the poor. Im not saying lets all hold hands and sing kumbaya but just try not to be such a prick and maybe your kids will pick up on that. and then maybe there kids will be slightly less prickish and so on and so forth. and maybe we can change this "nature" you speak of, that is apparently written in stone somewhere.
No you aren't a commie. Just naive. We can't change what we are. You can pretend to be more selfless but it will end in failure every single time as it has. It is idiotic to try a system the goes against our nature. One that has failed every time it was tried.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
i was speaking hypothetically.... obviously none of that is ever going to happen because this world is filled with people like yourself.
If you couldnt even hypothetically think of a scenario where we arent killing each other to horde an unnecessary amount of resources what chance do we have?
I mean its not like in the thousands of years of civilization we have gotten any more peaceful.
I'm just being a realist. Many people don't take kindly to having their property taken. Even if we did have unlimited resources and limited needs, we still have to find equality among other less tangible things such as love, friendship, beauty, etc.
The best way to achieve peace is through liberty or through tyrannically state.
"obviously none of that is ever going to happen because this world is filled with people like yourself."
"What if we had all the resources we needed for everyone to be comfortable already?"
wow, your delusions are adorable. Having the resources and being able to send them to where they are wanted/needed are two VERY different things. It's logistically impossible. Don't hate the wealthy nations for being able to afford to live well.
"and fyi some of us are peaceful :)"
Bulls**t. We are are all basically the same. We are civil/peaceful as long as things are good. When the s**t hits the fan that all changes. It then becomes survival of the fittest. This is why the human species has survived this long. We have a strong survival/self-preservation instinct. you are one of those people who likes to ignore portions of our natureComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"We are not a peaceful species so we will never achieve world peace until we can satisfy everyone's needs."
And we can only do that through the love of Christ, right? Or the sword... maybe it's the sword I'm thinking of. It worked during the Crusades after all
"As long as we have to compete for resources we will fight each other."
Maybe, just a whacky idea, we should cut back on our greed, and through osmosis, rely LESS on natural resources.
"We can't kill the Earth. It was here long before were showed up and it will be here LONG after we are gone."
Couldn't agree with you more. But wait.... why don't just PRAY for the problems to go away? I mean, that's the platform for every one of the Republicans who were running for the nomination to run for President.
"And we can only do that through the love of Christ, right? Or the sword... maybe it's the sword I'm thinking of. It worked during the Crusades after all"
WTF are you talking about? Did I mention anything about any religion? No.... you seem to think anyone who doesn't agree with your limited view of reality must be religious.
lornefsFeb 3, 2012
I work for a charity that raises over 100 million every year and has no religious affiliation at all.
It is not an atheist charity, the term is meaningless.
Atheism is not a religion.
charlesdkraussFeb 3, 2012
Thank you.
setabsFeb 3, 2012
I would think it just depends on how the charity projects it's image. Look at Red Cross as far as I know they are not a religious charity but they do pretty well.
I wouldn't support a charity if their image was "Look at us we're atheists and we are helping. Go suck it!"Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lornefsFeb 3, 2012
As long as you are charitable, the world can forgive a little narrow mindedness.
AstrocrapperFeb 4, 2012
Why do you talk down to him? Be polite dude, he is trying to make a point and your trying to talk to him like he's a moron.
lornefsFeb 4, 2012
Really?
AstrocrapperFeb 4, 2012
Yes really, get off your imaginary throne. Just because your on the internet, doesn't mean you should be rude to everyone.
lornefsFeb 4, 2012
Astrocrapper - what are you, his mother or his priest?
That moron was the one who said "Go suck it", he suck it. (you too)
craig1958Feb 3, 2012
I'm reluctant to donate to any charity that may use some of the money to support religious nonsense. For example, I have mixed feelings about the salvation army due to their overtly religious mission statement. I'm sure they do good work, but I'm not comfortable with that aspect of the organization. I would prefer giving to charities that are explicitly secular.
satori3000Feb 4, 2012
Red Cross has it's roots in Christianity, just as the Red Crescent has it's roots in the Muslim faith.
gt777Feb 3, 2012
Why our best works are but filthy rags!
http://www.geero.net/2009/11/our-best-works-are-filthy-rags.html
swarbsblogFeb 4, 2012
Well said sir!
josh53188Feb 4, 2012
I don't think people that want to give to help the needy would be smart to give it all to their own church. Their clergymen that direct the sermons and church affairs draw a salary, the church itself needs money to be maintained, and the charity the church does is not always on display for you to see where the money goes. I understand giving to your church at a level that you feel is appropriate but you should know where the money goes.
Better to give to a charity that shows how much they spend on direct support of the needy instead of not showing the numbers. NPO personnel for a lot of charities draw larger salaries than you'd think. Just because the organization itself is not-for-profit doesn't mean that the people working for the organization don't draw large salaries and/or see other major benefits.
liquidgeckaFeb 4, 2012
I don't think I have ever seen a church that just won't give those numbers. Most put those numbers somewhere really easy to find like on the weekly bulletin. What churches are not making this data accessible?
josh53188Feb 4, 2012
Well, your tithes may be apparent but I've been to at least a dozen churches in my lifetime and they never said how much the individuals in the parish drew for their salary and how much was collected for anything other than specific charities in which there were "special" collections.
anomaly100Feb 3, 2012
You just have to be 'concerned with the poor' to be charitable - that's something that seems to be lacking recently.
norman619Feb 3, 2012
No just the poor. You just have to be willing to give to anyone you feel is in need. Your religious leanings have nothing to do with it. It's pretty silly how Atheists are constantly in need of strokes to their egos.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
CaptainobliviousFeb 3, 2012
Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2019:23-19:24&version=NIV
Funny how athiests tend to have more in common with your savior than you do lol
drich255Feb 3, 2012
Jesus said it was hard, but didn't say it was impossible.
pnorth12Feb 3, 2012
ROFL, you apparently haven't seen a camel or a needle recently (or camels were extremely small and needles very large in the time of Yeshua). Or, your jesus sounds just plain ol' wishy-washy.
norman619Feb 3, 2012
I did. It was very messy.
norman619Feb 3, 2012
Jesus is a mythical figure. Zero proof the guy even existed. I don't see why you felt the need to mention him. Helping our fellow man is a survival trait. It's why we are a SOCIAL species.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rudegarFeb 3, 2012
it was not an uncommon name in the area at the time
likely like all folklore the stories were selected from stories from several people called Jesus and likely some by other names
and then the church in Rome later on voted on which stories made the bible
kinda like American Idol
norman619Feb 3, 2012
The is no historical record of anyone fitting the biblical Jesus. None of the historical sources which were around during the time he is supposed to be alive mention him at all. All "historical" records Christians like to use as proof are from around 200 years AFTER his supposed death. Believe me I have done the research.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
CaptainobliviousFeb 3, 2012
"Bulls**t. We are are all basically the same. We are civil/peaceful as long as things are good. When the s**t hits the fan that all changes. It then becomes survival of the fittest. This is why the human species has survived this long. We have a strong survival/self-preservation instinct." -Norman619,
liscombcFeb 3, 2012
A bit off topic, but that translation is likely wrong. I have seen it translated as a rope through the eye of a needle. It's hard enough to get a thread through a needle, and a rope would be almost impossible.
I believe He stated this because money can become addicting, and many people are always looking for more even when they have more than they could ever need.
norman619Feb 3, 2012
A lot of the modern bible is likely mistranslated. The current bible is translated from other translations. I'm fairly sure the original teachings of Christianity/Jesus have been lost in the countless translation the book has gone through. Even today I will see Spanish - English translations, both are languages I am fluent in, which are wrong.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
liscombcFeb 3, 2012
I have to disagree, you can still get the old testament in the original hebrew, and the new testament in the original greek.
Most modern translations come from both the orignal languages, and if you know how to read those languages you can compare the original to the translation. That is what people who go to Bible school do, and those that make many of the modern translation.
pinkfish411Feb 4, 2012
"The" current Bible? There are dozens of major modern translations in English alone.
Most of the modern translations come from copies in the original languages (but not the original manuscripts), tested in some cases against hundreds of other copies and ancient translations. Textual criticism is actually a pretty well-developed science, as is early Christian studies. No, we haven't lost the early teachings of Christianity. While we don't know everything, we know quite a bit about the early times.
geogeerFeb 3, 2012
True, you also have to understand that in those times the wealthy people rarely acquired their wealth through legal and moral means.
CaptainobliviousFeb 3, 2012
Right, which is different than how the wealthy acquire it today how exactly?
I know what you are going to say, but if you really really think about it, that includes me and you and our made in a sweatshop sneakers and phones. How often do you take into account the amount of pain and misery your luxuries cause? You better hope to your god there isnt a hell because if there is WE ARE ALL GOING :) see you there mwahahahahahahahahah ahem
drich255Feb 3, 2012
It also says in the NT: 1 Timothy 6:10
10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
Notice it says the "love of money", not just "money".
liquidgeckaFeb 4, 2012
Wow.. so one of the biggest problems with quoting the bible is people often quote small little glimmers of it and claim that it makes sense.
Read the whole section:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2019:16-19:30&version=NIV
He follows that part with "but in god all things are possible". The disciples react by asking "how can we get to heaven then?" to which he gives the normal "grace of god" reply..
Picture this, rich men in that era were denied nothing. He was saying that the "freest" person can not even make it to heaven except via god.
Replace the line about the needle and the camel with "Not even the wealthiest man could afford to enter heaven". The rest of the conversation makes sense. Its clear that the parable was intended to demonstrate impossibility but was not directed at the "rich" so much as the most enabled.
This is a process described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics
The idea is to understand how something would be understood to the listeners rather than a literal reading.
murrayc1968Feb 3, 2012
"You just have to be willing to give to anyone you feel is in need. Your religious leanings have nothing to do with it."
That's the way it SHOULD be. But given the current political climate thanks to the GOP )you know - the Jesus loving group), the word "charity" seems to be a four-letter-word.
I'm paraphrasing, but Bill Maher said it best about the GOP who think that "Obama is not a brown man wants to heal the sick and feed the poor for free - you're thinking of JESUS" screams volumes about conservative hypocrisy.
You're right, your religious leanings, or lack thereof, should not have anything to do with helping with charity, but when you get people like the Cancer Society refusing a $250,000 because the so-called "religious right" deliberately have people scared/misinformed about who the atheists are, then the need to stand up and explain becomes necessary.
stuffradioFeb 3, 2012
Who cares what Bill Maher says. Also, your conclusion about the Cancer Society story is just an assumption that the atheists like to think is what happened. No one knows except the Cancer Society.
geogeerFeb 3, 2012
Not all charity is legitimate charity.
PanjeeFeb 3, 2012
Believe, don't believe... who cares? Just share the LOVE :o)
theonewhoknowsFeb 3, 2012
Stop sharing things. That is communist!
PanjeeFeb 3, 2012
Sure, but is it possible to sell love?
theonewhoknowsFeb 3, 2012
Love costs about 100 bucks an hour on the street.
PanjeeFeb 3, 2012
LOL... I think you may be confusing love with sex?
niceguyvanFeb 3, 2012
Bill Gates is an Atheist, he runs the biggest charity on the planet
kanakaFeb 3, 2012
Was never about just 'being good'. Thats a derivative not a primary objective.
skywiseFeb 4, 2012
Novenator once again posting atheist stories in the Religion section.
How appropo.
bersercFeb 3, 2012
One of the largest charitable organizations in the world is the Lutheran church. Ironically Lutherans believe that you cannot buy your way into heaven with good deeds.
geogeerFeb 3, 2012
Psssstttt... none of the Christian denominations teach that you can buy your way into heaven with money or deeds.
bersercFeb 3, 2012
A lot of religions require you to have good works.
geogeerFeb 3, 2012
That does not mean that you are owed heaven by doing those works. That is where Luther got it wrong.
bersercFeb 3, 2012
This is not the place for a religious history lesson so I'll back off. But you really need to learn more about the catholic church at the time of the reformation.
pinkfish411Feb 4, 2012
Keep in mind that at the same time Luther and others were protesting against abuses in the Catholic Church, people within Catholicism were doing the same thing. The Catholics had their own internal Reformation that happened right around the time that Protestantism was forming.
gt777Feb 3, 2012
That is not the purpose of Jesus! If you do good works you will be saved! Romans 1:17
spazattack5000Feb 4, 2012
I know a small number of Lutherans and you would know never they belonged to any religious group unless you know them very well. Yet, as you pointed out, they are incredibly charitable and for the right reasons. Why can't other religions be like that?
bersercFeb 4, 2012
Thank you, I have had the same experience.
corvetteaustin24Feb 3, 2012
I'm really surprised this article didn't mention the Atheist presence on Kiva.org. If you take a look at these numbers, http://www.kiva.org/community the atheist community has loaned a total of $6.2 million, the next closest group is the christian community, raising $3.6 million. With 19,000+ members in the group, it's larger than Kiva's 2nd-5th groups combined.
geogeerFeb 3, 2012
True, they were desperate enough to try to find any real presence of Atheists donating.
corvetteaustin24Feb 3, 2012
Why the f**k am I being dugg down by providing facts? Holy s**t, christians are vile and angry people! Everything they're not supposed to be!
geogeerFeb 3, 2012
2 people digg your comment down = Evil & vile? Over react much?
ohnoeeeFeb 4, 2012
So then it's just a regular charity. Well maybe it'll shut fundamentalists up... but most normal people aren't surprised.
helpingallneedsFeb 5, 2012
Awesome! Im glad people are starting to realize, good people are good people. No matter if they go to church or not!
helpingallneedsFeb 5, 2012
Awesome! Im glad people are starting to realize, good people are good people. No matter if they go to church or not!
carlmosconiFeb 3, 2012
Amen brother, amen!
laurahoustonFeb 3, 2012
most charieties are not geared towards any religions except churches and their associated charities.
However, God doesn't care about a nametag..
God? is closest to children, people and animals in need. You can feel that presence of good & evil 'something'
skyscapeFeb 3, 2012
Good Grief. These atheist organizations (geared toward atheists) gather pennies compared to religious charities. (There are also non-religious charities that are doing very good, but they are not atheist either, and most of their donors are religious folks anyways) The only reason why they even try these alternative means, is because they have been bombarded time and again for being useless. Atheism, beyond the brain stimulation, has been, and still remains, useless for the most part. This article provides one example of Atheism trying to find ways to be credible.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
matthrFeb 3, 2012
Atheism is useless? Have you checked what religion has been up to recently? How much damage has been inflicted in the name of one god or another? Have you heard of people motivated by atheism doing ethnic cleansing, crashing planes into buildings, or preaching that condoms are evil in lands where the aids infection rates are sky high?
I think your right, religion isn't useless, that would be putting it's value to high, I think religion is actively harmful to humanity.
gt777Feb 3, 2012
If you visit any jail and find out if at least even one Atheist exists, all your assumptions and premesis will be all wrong! Do You supposed that is the place all holy people are hanging out?
matthrFeb 3, 2012
First atheist are very under represented in jail, at least in the countries where atheism isn't a crime. Second, what?
Somehow you turned my statment into a claim that atheist are all righteous beings, missing the point of what i was saying entirely. I was speaking of belief as a motivator for wicked actions, and that lacking the belief atheist have less motivation to commit atrocities.
For instance, unless I miss my guess, your flavor of iron age fairy tale tells you in Leviticus that gay people should be stoned to death. This motivates some of your fellows to attack maim and kill homosexuals. I and my ilk however completely lack that motivation because we don't believe your book of small mindedness is divenly inspired. I still have many of the other motivations you do, including the desire to be moral, and occasionally the desire to do bad things. The difference between a theist and an atheist is that we don't have religion as a motivator. All of the actions I mentioned were religiously motivated.
Point of education, you have employed a logical fallacy called a Non Sequitur. Literally your statement doesn't follow from your premise. Another good example "I see geese, therefore Jesus is my savior". Do have a good day,
davidnivenFeb 3, 2012
Well, so-called atheistic charities have nowhere to go but increase in numbers.
"Here. Have a free meal on us. Isn't it a great day that...random, uncaring natural processes created so that we could evolve from primordial sludge and have no true meaning to our existence?!? Oh, by the way, you are nothing but a complex set of collocated, mindless chemicals, meaning your free will and consciousness are mere illusions. Yay! Atheism!"
Give me a break.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
charlesdkraussFeb 3, 2012
lol You are an idiot, plain and simple. Atheists don't go through their daily lives thinking like this or rambling on about evolution. All it means to be an atheist is that you lack a belief in the existence of a god. Many atheists probably don't even understand evolution that well, and they don't really need to, either.
The fact that you are talking trash about a charity, simply because it's grounded in secularism is very telling of you. Then again, so does every stupid f**king thing that you say.
murrayc1968Feb 3, 2012
OR.. you can say: "Here. Have a free meal on us. Even though you will have to sit through a sermon to better understand - while through no fault of your own - you were BORN a sinner and must accept the [blackmailing/conditional] love of Jesus Christ in order to get into the kingdom of heaven. Oh, and while we are at it, both Mother Theresa and every pope has demanded that you appreciate your humility even though they both take in billions of dollars every year which could end world hunger dozens of times over but need to live in a lifestyle of luxury in Vatican city."
Yay Hypocrisy! I mean... Yay Christianity!
bluenose2Feb 3, 2012
Now, Murry...Tsk tsk
stuffradioFeb 3, 2012
Catholics follow the pope. The pope has no authority except in Catholicism. We also don't follow Mother Theresa.
Yay atheist hypocrite!
geogeerFeb 3, 2012
Hmmm.... I've volunteered at a religious based and funded "soup kitchen" many times. Except for a brief prayer before the meal there was nothing mentioned about the faith at all.
Why doesn't the Government sell off DC and give it to the poor of the country?
There is no larger Charity in the world than the Catholic Church. They spend a fortune preserving the art and making it freely available for the world to see.
CaptainobliviousFeb 3, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html?pagewanted=all
geogeerFeb 3, 2012
Off topic much?
sbuckley00Feb 4, 2012
I agree with you but to be fair, it is every humans responsibility to end world hunger. The simple fact is that it is possible yet we do not do it. Mainly because we have posers who say they want to help people and really do not. Also, we have those who care only for themselves and obviously those people should just be terminated.
I'll be backkkk...
theonewhoknowsFeb 3, 2012
What you wish and hope for must always be true!
That is how this universe works.
notfeelingitFeb 3, 2012
congratulations! you nailed it. once you grasp that reality and embrace it, there's no better freedom in the universe.
unfortunately, i fear your innate anthropological hubris will prevent you from ever truly coming to terms with those facts.
ghosts.aren't.real.
rudegarFeb 3, 2012
this is the stereotype of religious people not getting what makes non religious peoples tick
along with "but then what happens what you die??"Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sbuckley00Feb 4, 2012
Why does life have to have some kind of meaning for you? Why does it matter so much too you? Do you realize that we are all subject to reality interpretation with in the confines of human thought? What does that mean?
Well for a layman like yourself, that means that it is very possible that the human brain is not even capable of thinking or knowing the true meaning of life. So, if that is true, what would it even matter?
sbuckley00Feb 4, 2012
Oh and by the way (since we know your not really that intelligent), I want to point this out too you..
"Oh, by the way, you are nothing but a complex set of collocated, mindless chemicals, meaning your free will and consciousness are mere illusions." <=== your conclusion makes no logical sense at all. As a matter of fact, the opposite would be true. If by definition we were 'complex set of collocated, mindless chemicals' then it would stand to reason that our free will and consciousness (our perception) are very much real!
flpflpflpFeb 4, 2012
Something to keep in mind when throwing around all the stats. When they say 'charity' while passing around the plate at church, that 'charity' also includes the church that is doing the collecting. 100% of the money collected by that church may go to building more infrastructure, a bigger parsonage for the preacher, a new jet airplane, whatever. Very little of the money collected by churches actually goes to feeding any hungry people or taking care of the poor. Most of it goes to operating expenses and the preachers salary. However, this money still get's lumped under the heading of 'charity'. Giving to your cult does not really make you 'good', it more means you were properly indoctrinated.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
skyislandFeb 3, 2012
People of the world, We need to work together in peace to keep the Earth alive - And this better happen because God's good Home, that little place in the Universe where people and all the creatures of Nature can exist is in process of going extinct by our own hand in oil+gas..
No amount of religiosity is going to give cover for what we have done, not now.. The very words of the Bible, the Koran and of Man to be Good are written with reverence and reference to things of Nature, of Mother Earth for whom and to which we all owe our very existence, and hopefully respect for our fathers and those who fought the little battles out in history making the planet habitable and keeping a record of life in our very existence at the cellular level.. A mighty force holding thermodynamic heat exchange within range for life to exist on a planetary scale in a shielded place from high energy radiation in the vast fabric of space..
Who thinks it an accident, all these things that are going on are happening by accident in the 'vacuum' of space, the discovery of the large and small made possible by science, by curiosity, by generosity and hard work.. Right now the internet, the technical ability and industrial capacity - is it an accident economic fractional reserve system and globalization made possible happens to have signs of terminal failure at right the same time as the atmosphere goes unstable in it's temperature and biological systems come under trauma?
This is a test, a test of our fiber, do we stand with the weakest among us to work together.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
norman619Feb 3, 2012
"People of the world, We need to work together in peace to keep the Earth alive "
We are not a peaceful species so we will never achieve world peace until we can satisfy everyone's needs. As long as we have to compete for resources we will fight each other.
We can't kill the Earth. It was here long before were showed up and it will be here LONG after we are gone.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
CaptainobliviousFeb 3, 2012
What if we had all the resources we needed for everyone to be comfortable already? What if a small group of people then took a very large portion of those resources for themselves and another very large (like a billion) people were left with much much less than they needed to even live? In that purely hypothetical scenario when or how could we ever achieve a state where we dont need to compete for resources?
But then again I guess you could say that those billion or so people that did not have adequate resources just didnt know the meaning of work and were waiting for handouts....
hypothetically speaking of course.
and fyi some of us are peaceful :)
nickymouseFeb 3, 2012
The first problem is that you have to define what comfortable is... since its subjective. Next, you need to destroy liberty, since you want to confiscate others property. After you get rid of liberty you'll need to deal with the continue problem of unlimited wants and limited resources... this can be done through rationing or lowering the quality of goods and service.
You now have to deal with countries that don't want to give up their resources for the greater good. This could be resolved through war. However what to do with the people unwilling to work and contribute to the great society? Hmmm. Maybe put them in camps.
I understand that your peaceful, but to achieve your envisioned society, you'll need to create it through violent and tyrannical means.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
norman619Feb 3, 2012
This person dreams of communism. While I agree communism is the ideal system it doesn't work for us. It always fails due to the fact that it works against human nature. We are not selfless enough by nature to make that system work. The traits that have helped us survive for so long also make it difficult for us to live peacefully in very large groups.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
CaptainobliviousFeb 3, 2012
Maybe we can try and be a little selfless, just a little, every generation. Just try it you know and see what happens.
Nothing crazy like helping the poor. Im not saying lets all hold hands and sing kumbaya but just try not to be such a prick and maybe your kids will pick up on that. and then maybe there kids will be slightly less prickish and so on and so forth. and maybe we can change this "nature" you speak of, that is apparently written in stone somewhere.
But what do I know im just a commie, right?
norman619Feb 3, 2012
No you aren't a commie. Just naive. We can't change what we are. You can pretend to be more selfless but it will end in failure every single time as it has. It is idiotic to try a system the goes against our nature. One that has failed every time it was tried.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
CaptainobliviousFeb 3, 2012
i was speaking hypothetically.... obviously none of that is ever going to happen because this world is filled with people like yourself.
If you couldnt even hypothetically think of a scenario where we arent killing each other to horde an unnecessary amount of resources what chance do we have?
I mean its not like in the thousands of years of civilization we have gotten any more peaceful.
http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html
nickymouseFeb 3, 2012
I'm just being a realist. Many people don't take kindly to having their property taken. Even if we did have unlimited resources and limited needs, we still have to find equality among other less tangible things such as love, friendship, beauty, etc.
The best way to achieve peace is through liberty or through tyrannically state.
"obviously none of that is ever going to happen because this world is filled with people like yourself."
I'll take that as a compliment.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
norman619Feb 3, 2012
"What if we had all the resources we needed for everyone to be comfortable already?"
wow, your delusions are adorable. Having the resources and being able to send them to where they are wanted/needed are two VERY different things. It's logistically impossible. Don't hate the wealthy nations for being able to afford to live well.
"and fyi some of us are peaceful :)"
Bulls**t. We are are all basically the same. We are civil/peaceful as long as things are good. When the s**t hits the fan that all changes. It then becomes survival of the fittest. This is why the human species has survived this long. We have a strong survival/self-preservation instinct. you are one of those people who likes to ignore portions of our natureComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
CaptainobliviousFeb 3, 2012
"Helping our fellow man is a survival trait" -Norman619
murrayc1968Feb 3, 2012
"We are not a peaceful species so we will never achieve world peace until we can satisfy everyone's needs."
And we can only do that through the love of Christ, right? Or the sword... maybe it's the sword I'm thinking of. It worked during the Crusades after all
"As long as we have to compete for resources we will fight each other."
Maybe, just a whacky idea, we should cut back on our greed, and through osmosis, rely LESS on natural resources.
"We can't kill the Earth. It was here long before were showed up and it will be here LONG after we are gone."
Couldn't agree with you more. But wait.... why don't just PRAY for the problems to go away? I mean, that's the platform for every one of the Republicans who were running for the nomination to run for President.
norman619Feb 3, 2012
"And we can only do that through the love of Christ, right? Or the sword... maybe it's the sword I'm thinking of. It worked during the Crusades after all"
WTF are you talking about? Did I mention anything about any religion? No.... you seem to think anyone who doesn't agree with your limited view of reality must be religious.
Nice logical fail you have there.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stuffradioFeb 3, 2012
Every time someone mentions the word Crusade, I say Pol Pot.
CaptainobliviousFeb 3, 2012
and whenever someone mentions Pol Pot, I mention
Osama bin Laden
Hitler
and GW. Bush.
and Pol Pot was a Buddhist...
gt777Feb 3, 2012
What about Stalin and MaoZeDong? And Karl Marx said religion is the opiate of the masses! The world nearly had nuclear wars because of his ideas!
geogeerFeb 3, 2012
So you don't believe in the right of people to defend themselves? You obviously have no idea what the Crusades were.
rudegarFeb 3, 2012
heheh once had a guy say we should not venture into space before we solved all problems on earth
odd thing was that he was studying ethnography on university...
skyislandFeb 3, 2012
Here is Rebuttal to your contention that mankind can't quote kill the Earth.
http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2012/01/gary-housers-rebuttal-realclimates.html