Mere atheism isn't enough -- help your community

[rug]

By Grant LaFleche, The Standard
Thursday, October 18, 2012 10:49:07 EDT AM

Regular readers of the Rant know I am not exactly religion's most ardent fan. I find the notion of religious faith strange. Even in Catholic school, I couldn't figure out why "doubting" Thomas got rapped on the knuckles for insisting on some evidence that his dead boss had risen from the grave.

I mean, wouldn't you?

"Blessed are those who believe without seeing" has always struck me as, at best, a naive idea. At worst, it's bloody dangerous.

But I digress. I'm actually not ranting about the gods today. I have a different target in mind. I'm looking at you, my fellow atheists.

http://www.wellandtribune.ca/2012/10/18/mere-atheism-isnt-enough----help-your-community

[Beartracks]

1. Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country. n/t

[EvolveOrConvolve]

2. I don't know any atheists who support the community

because of their atheism. When I'm volunteering at the soup kitchen or donating to the JDRF, it's not because of the fear of fiery damnation or the promise of eternal, heavenly bliss. It's because it feels like the right thing to do.

Don't get me wrong - I thing religious groups do some good things for the community. I just think that religion should spend a lot less on their churches and real estate and businesses and more on charity. A whole LOT less.

[ReasonableToo]

3. After careful consideration...

...I'm not concerned with that atheist groups are not as visible in local charity efforts as churches. Yes, it would be nice for all people to get together and help those in need.

Since atheism is not a religion, atheists would most likely participate in secular organizations as individuals or send money directly to food banks, veterans groups, ucla, planned parenthood, fire department, nature conservatory, sierra club, hospice, art councils, etc.

In some areas, an atheist-only group might as well paint a target on their meeting place for the fundamental nut cases that would be "offended" and feel it's their duty to god to take out those evil non-believers.

I also wonder how many atheists think that the role of government is to do as the constitution says and "promote the general welfare." If the government collects taxes from all and then helps those who need it without regard for their religious affiliation or lack thereof, atheist may think that they are doing their part by paying taxes without complaint. Many church goers protest taxes in part because they tithe 10% to the church and figure that if any one needs help, they should go to the church because that's where they've donated money for the less well off. The problem is that many churches give to their own ranks or proselytize to the people that they help. Maybe in one area the catholic charities have lots of programs but a local baptist doesn't want to go to that church for help.

So, yes, it would be nice for atheist groups to formally sponsor local charity events. But, even if they are not, it doesn't mean that atheist as individuals are not doing good work for their community. (I also wonder how many times an atheist groups' offer was declined.)

[skepticscott]

4. WTF does that even mean..

Atheism isn't "enough"? When has anyone ever claimed that atheism was an overarching worldview that should dictate every aspect of a person's thinking and behavior? Why does this yahoo single out atheists here? Why not birdwatchers, scrapbookers, homebrewers or Sci-fi fans?

[cleanhippie]

7. You are correct of course, but I think your analogies are a bit off...

Why DOES he single out atheists (non-believers?) While a birdwatcher may be motivated to get active to protect a particular bird habitat, asking an atheist to draw from their non-belief to get active is like asking a non-bird watcher to get active to protect a bird habitat. It makes no sense.

I do NOTHING in the name of my non-belief. I volunteer at a food bank because I have compassion and empathy for my fellow humans. Not believing in a god has NOTHING to do with it.

[skepticscott]

9. Well, he scolds atheists specifically

for not being openly involved as organized groups in the particular charitable events he mentions. Those have as much to do with non-belief in gods as birdwatching or scrapbooking do.

[cleanhippie]

10. I know, and I don't understand why? This is coming from the atheism+ crowd, I think...

I think that we, as non-believers, do more harm (to ourselves) by trying to do anything beyond bringing attention to the absurdities of religion and trying to stop the spread of religion into our secular government. Anything beyond that is not atheism, its something else...

Humanists, which most non-believers can identify with, are a wonderful group to do these things, and they do. Many secular and specifically non-religious charities and groups exist for this purpose. Attaching our non-belief to ANYTHING other than non-belief is a poor decision, IMO.

[skepticscott]

17. Even some of the things you mention

are not atheism, but anti-theism. A lot of atheists either don't perceive the distinction, or are sloppy about making it.

[Angry Dragon]

5. Perhaps atheists should wear signs so everyone can tell

much like the religious

[rug]

6. Here you go.

You may choose from a wide selection of chains.

[Angry Dragon]

11. Oh no, I mean a really big one so there is no doubt

that is just one that one wears when they are having an affair
you remember the Scarlet letter

[rug]

13. Well, hell, you're a tough customer.

I'll refer you to the Graphics Department.

[Angry Dragon]

14. Much better

[cleanhippie]

8. How does anyone get motivated to do something by drawing from what they do not believe?

While a birdwatcher may be motivated to get active to protect a particular bird habitat, asking an atheist to draw from their non-belief to get active is like asking a non-bird watcher to get active to protect a bird habitat. It makes no sense.

I do NOTHING in the name of my non-belief. I volunteer at a food bank because I have compassion and empathy for my fellow humans. Not believing in a god has NOTHING to do with it.

[rug]

12. If you looked at it honestly I daresay atheism does motivate many things.

Can you honestly say the often displayed vitriol against religion is completely unmotivated by atheism? Governments do, and have done as bad and worse, yet the vitriol is qualiatively different.

Can you honestly say that secularism is purely independent from atheism? You may say that is simply good citizenship in response to encroachment special interests but we both know that is not the complete answer.

[cleanhippie]

15. I touched on this in response to SkepticScott above...

I think that we, as non-believers, do more harm (to ourselves) by trying to do anything beyond bringing attention to the absurdities of religion and trying to stop the spread of religion into our secular government. Anything beyond that is not atheism, its something else...

Humanists, which most non-believers can identify with, are a wonderful group to do these things, and they do. Many secular and specifically non-religious charities and groups exist for this purpose. Attaching our non-belief to ANYTHING other than non-belief is a poor decision, IMO.

[rug]

18. Well then, why do you find it necessary to bring attention to the apparent absurdities of religion?

Atheism per se does not require it.

[cleanhippie]

20. Atheism requires nothing but a lack of belief. And its not APPARENT absurdities...

My atheism exists only in response to theism. When people stop proclaiming patently absurd things to be true because of their belief in religion, my opposition to those patently absurd things will cease.

[skepticscott]

16. Well, when you figure out the difference

between atheism and anti-theism, let us know. They are not the same thing.

[rug]

19. Do you think one must be an atheist to be an antitheist?

[skepticscott]

21. Of course not

Because you don't. Because they aren't the same thing. Is that even a question?

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in any gods.

An anti-theist is someone who thinks that organized religion, or at least certain flavors of it, is an overall detrimental, rather than beneficial force in society, and that its detrimental influences should be spoken out against and resisted.

You can be either one without being the other.

[Phillip McCleod]

22. not true

according to this 2007 berkeley study, traditional charity giving is less frequent by non-believers because they aren't motivated to give for the same reason. they need the human connection to feel compassion. the idea and social props aren't enough. http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/04/30/religionandgenerosity/