God/Jesus Loves You

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

I think there is a good reason for that. Atheism only means one thing...lack of belief in a god or gods. That singular belief is not much of a foundation on which to start an entire organization. That said, there are many atheists who devote their time to charitable causes, but it simply isn't under any banner of "atheism."

I don't think there is any way to quantify that. I have doubts that there are "many." I would wager that anybody who is willing to devote their time to aiding their fellow man believe in some form of spiritualism, and thus some form of God, even if they shun religion.

In fact, most athiests that I know believe devoutly in Darwinism, and see the plight of the poor as an extension of the survival of the fittest. I've been in disucssions before with athiests who believe that charity weakens the collective gene pool, and thus society.

[orangeatheist]

Originally Posted by claviculasolomonis

Nope, when i was homeless in seattle i didn't run into any charities that were athiest......

Does that mean there are no atheist (or non-religious) charities in Seattle, or does that mean you just never ran into one?

Originally Posted by claviculasolomonis

Not to mention my post above regards to the churches/temples in seattle that didn't require any form of worship to eat.

Then how did you know if they were religious or not?

[orangeatheist]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

I think there is a good reason for that. Atheism only means one thing...lack of belief in a god or gods. That singular belief is not much of a foundation on which to start an entire organization. That said, there are many atheists who devote their time to charitable causes, but it simply isn't under any banner of "atheism."

Extremely good point. Well said.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

I think there is a good reason for that. Atheism only means one thing...lack of belief in a god or gods. That singular belief is not much of a foundation on which to start an entire organization. That said, there are many atheists who devote their time to charitable causes, but it simply isn't under any banner of "atheism."

Only telling you what i saw first hand. I disagree about a singular belief being used to start a whole organization. I mean - there are LOTS of them: (NRA, Insert religion here, Insert Cause here, etc).

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Taco John

I don't think there is any way to quantify that. I have doubts that there are "many." I would wager that anybody who is willing to devote their time to aiding their fellow man believe in some form of spiritualism, and thus some form of God, even if they shun religion.

In fact, most athiests that I know believe devoutly in Darwinism, and see the plight of the poor as an extension of the survival of the fittest. I've been in disucssions before with athiests who believe that charity weakens the collective gene pool, and thus society.

I'd wager that is a minority view point among atheists. Most these days are secular humanists. Charitable works are very much a part of that philosophy. It doesn't appear to me you've talk to a very good sampling of atheists.

[RkyMtnThunder]

Originally Posted by Bob

And your statement implies what? That the Catholic church has had a problem with preists and molestation? Yup, sure -- and I dont think to many active Catholics are saying that child molestation is a good thing?

Just becuase you may not feel comfortable with those of faith -- there is evil in almost every corner of society, large insain jumps by insuation, panting broader good groups as some how evil may refelct a disintest in truth? Not sure.

It is a fact that those that go to churches give more $ on average to various charitable causes (on a percentage basis) than those who dont attend church -- I am not sure all of all the reasons are for this fact, but it is true. There are many folks who attend no church that give alot, but there is a false assumption lead by a left-leaning media that the left are always generous, the right are alway stingy. It is another example of the parties and thier puppets wanting to cram people into boxes of thier own making.

Link?

I am not disputing that religious folks can be charitable. And I am not atheist myself. But blanket statements are usually incorrect so I would like to see this 'fact' come from an unbiased source....does that source exist?

I provided a link to a charity watchdog site that provides plenty of evidence of an abundance of secular charitable groups. You are saying that the majority of the $$ these secular groups receive are from religious people? And that its a fact?

[Bob]

Originally Posted by Taco John

Yeah, I know exactly what that scripture means. I've been a part of Bible study since I was an adolescent. In fact, I didn't take it out of context at all. Nor have I taken out of context the fact that Jesus ran from his attackers. It's the truth.

Being a Christian isn't about protecting yourself. It's about giving up the self, and serving others. Christ was the ultimate pacifist.

I take issue with your charactarization that I have any sort of hatred for Christianity. I find true Christianity the most noble cause in the world. I will admit, though, that I have a distaste for your distortion of it. Nothing you have presented is scriptural in any way, whereas, on the other hand, everything I've said has been backed up by scriptures, none of which I've taken out of context as you say.

I do think that Christ was loving and attempted his whole life to get people 2000 years ago who felt that exaltation came from exalting themselves above others and to consider there own weaknesses, and to be humble and accepting of others – including those who were outcast. I am with you there, but when Christ cleared out the money changers from the temple, he did it with force (actually he did it own two occasions)

The second time he cleared out the money chargers forcibly from the temple, Jesus hung out there and proceeded to preach what seems like a long sermon – he didn’t bolt, he stood up to what he felt was evil.

I don’t think that Christ told people to put a sign on our backs that reads “kick me I am humble.” Regarding issues of physical conflict, I don’t think that I would be following his commandments if someone were to break into my home, and I let those people hurt my family. I know this is an extreme example, and admittedly when it comes to war one should be very deliberate, and careful before thinking that you are anointed by God to kill so and so… I do think that if I had my scriptures here at work I could pull out a few examples where Christ may have directed followers to standup for themselves – not sure to what degree though. All of the examples I can think of now, regarding Christ reflect a position of promoting peace – not war.

[RkyMtnThunder]

Originally Posted by Bob

A legit question. One thought is to consider those faiths that let you get out without a death sentence, and do not force conversion at the edge of a sword...

It may come down to having an open mind to conider options, but a closed enough one, to hold onto something...

many religions have been spread by the sword at one time or another. Abrahamic faiths included.

Shocking anyone would need to be reminded of that

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

Does that mean there are no atheist (or non-religious) charities in Seattle, or does that mean you just never ran into one?



Then how did you know if they were religious or not?

There were no atheist groups that i ran into doing work for the poor. Not saying there isn't, but they didn't seem nearly as active at helping people like the churches and temples did. They promoted where to get help, etc. I didn't see "Atheists for the homeless" out and about (please use some levity before you rant). Not saying they weren't, just saying if there was/were - they didn't promote their services to help those who really needed it.

I'd thinking going to a church or to a Krisna temple - you'd find that to be religious. Unless of course you are telling me atheists are donating time and money to churches and temples.

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by claviculasolomonis

Only telling you what i saw first hand. I disagree about a singular belief being used to start a whole organization. I mean - there are LOTS of them: (NRA, Insert religion here, Insert Cause here, etc).

For example here is a dating site for atheists:

Free Thinker's Match Maker - personal ads for atheists, agnostics, humanists and other freethinkers

Welcome to the Free Thinker's Match Maker. Do any of the following describe you...

* Atheist
* Agnostic
* Freethinker
* Humanist
* Non-Religious
* Non-Practicing
* Objectivist
* Skeptic
* Pagan
* Deist

...as well as single and looking?

If so, then this site is for you. Browse 1000s of profiles and photos placed by like minded singles.

http://www.freethinkermatch.com/

[orangeatheist]

Originally Posted by Taco John

II would wager that anybody who is willing to devote their time to aiding their fellow man believe in some form of spiritualism, and thus some form of God, even if they shun religion.

?

When I give to a charity I do so out of the service they provide. In other words, I have donated to my local PBS station because I support the children's programming they offer as well as such science documentaries as NOVA. I have donated to schools in my area because I believe that supporting the education of my neighborhood children is important. I have donated to a variety of "causes" that I agree with (certain disease research and the like). None of that giving was done out of any sense of "spiritualism".

Originally Posted by Taco John

In fact, most athiests that I know believe devoutly in Darwinism,

Oh, please. "Believe devoutly" as if Darwinian evolution is a religious belief system. I ACCEPT evolution because it is the most supported theory that accurately reflects the facts of decent with modification and makes the most accurate predictions. It's a scientific theory with the most muscle. I don't "believe" in it.

Originally Posted by Taco John

and see the plight of the poor as an extension of the survival of the fittest. I've been in disucssions before with athiests who believe that charity weakens the collective gene pool, and thus society.

Not all charity is for the poor. It's rather absurd to use evolution as an excuse to get out of giving. In fact, evolution rather encourages us to help the needy. I'll let you chew on that and try to figure it out.

However, any atheist who claims that charity for the poor "weakens the collective gene pool" is an idiot. As if poverty were some sort of inheritable biological trait.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

I'd wager that is a minority view point among atheists. Most these days are secular humanists. Charitable works are very much a part of that philosophy. It doesn't appear to me you've talk to a very good sampling of atheists.

Just to test this, do any of you atheists here (OA, Bronco Bob, freak, etc)consider yourself social Darwinist? That is a pretty arcane idea these days. I don't personally know any atheist who adheres to that kind of thinking.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

I think there is a good reason for that. Atheism only means one thing...lack of belief in a god or gods. That singular belief is not much of a foundation on which to start an entire organization. That said, there are many atheists who devote their time to charitable causes, but it simply isn't under any banner of "atheism."

Atheism should only be defined by unbelief, and for some it is. For others additional baggage seems to find a way onto that train of thought (just like any beliefe of non-beliefe system) that may have nothing, or may be contrary to the idea itself. Make sense? People are inconsistent –

[RkyMtnThunder]

Originally Posted by claviculasolomonis

There were no atheist groups that i ran into doing work for the poor. Not saying there isn't, but they didn't seem nearly as active at helping people like the churches and temples did. They promoted where to get help, etc. I didn't see "Atheists for the homeless" out and about (please use some levity before you rant). Not saying they weren't, just saying if there was/were - they didn't promote their services to help those who really needed it.

I'd thinking going to a church or to a Krisna temple - you'd find that to be religious. Unless of course you are telling me atheists are donating time and money to churches and temples.

Granted this might represent the minority...

But in Tempe Arizona, near and around ASU campus there is a large population of transient youth. There are a few groups trying to help these kids off the streets, the most active group, sponsored by the state of Arizona in conjunction with the university, is not affiliated to any particular religion. Volunteers individually may be, but they do not appear to be working under a unified religious banner

Just an example of at least one group in this country helping people get off the streets that is not religiously based..rather humanitarian in general.

Of course with them being state funded...one can see why they havent drawn any theological lines in the sand

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by Taco John

In fact, most athiests that I know believe devoutly in Darwinism, and see the plight of the poor as an extension of the survival of the fittest. I've been in disucssions before with athiests who believe that charity weakens the collective gene pool, and thus society.

A lot of atheists also believe in the law of gravity, nuclear physics,
the germ theory of disease, plate tectonics, mathematics, electricity,
and a whole host of other scientific principles.
So it's not surprising they would also believe in evolution.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by RkyMtnThunder

many religions have been spread by the sword at one time or another. Abrahamic faiths included.

Shocking anyone would need to be reminded of that

Oh, sorry, I should have qualified it and said since the crusades -- or freaking 2007.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by RkyMtnThunder

Granted this might represent the minority...

But in Tempe Arizona, near and around ASU campus there is a large population of transient youth. There are a few groups trying to help these kids off the streets, the most active group, sponsored by the state of Arizona in conjunction with the university, is not affiliated to any particular religion. Volunteers individually may be, but they do not appear to be working under a unified religious banner

Just an example of at least one group in this country helping people get off the streets that is not religiously based..rather humanitarian in general.

Of course with them being state funded...one can see why they havent drawn any theological lines in the sand

No, that's a good example. I do understand the line/sand issue as well.

[RkyMtnThunder]

Originally Posted by Bob

Oh, sorry, I should have qualified it and said since the crusades -- or freaking 2007.

Look at American history. It wasnt thousands of years ago that 'heathens' were converted - frequently with inhumane tactics.

I am not trying to argue with you, but you are spitting out blanket statements left and right.


Edit: BTW I am not an atheist, nor have I sworn alligence to any particular religious group or movement. I do find I have taken to defense of atheist/secular charitable groups in this thread because it really seems that truths are being glossed over and that desire to contribute to the greater good is not necessarily a 'religious' trait but a HUMAN trait.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

However, any atheist who claims that charity for the poor "weakens the collective gene pool" is an idiot. As if poverty were some sort of inheritable biological trait.

No kidding. Taco claiming that this idiotic brand of social Dawinism is a majority view point among atheists is laughable. He needs to talk to more people.

[orangeatheist]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Just to test this, do any of you atheists here (OA, Bronco Bob, freak, etc)consider yourself social Darwinist? That is a pretty arcane idea these days. I don't personally know any atheist who adheres to that kind of thinking.

I find the notion not only antiquated, but repulsive.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

?

When I give to a charity I do so out of the service they provide. In other words, I have donated to my local PBS station because I support the children's programming they offer as well as such science documentaries as NOVA. I have donated to schools in my area because I believe that supporting the education of my neighborhood children is important. I have donated to a variety of "causes" that I agree with (certain disease research and the like). None of that giving was done out of any sense of "spiritualism".

I don't know about anybody else, but I'm not referring to "giving" money to charity. I'm talking about the giving of yourself to philanthropic service.

Oh, please. "Believe devoutly" as if Darwinian evolution is a religious belief system. I ACCEPT evolution because it is the most supported theory that accurately reflects the facts of decent with modification and makes the most accurate predictions. It's a scientific theory with the most muscle. I don't "believe" in it.

Paint it how you want. I have no stake in how you want to frame your beliefs, or whether you want to frame them as something other than "beliefs." However you want to frame it, the dichotomy is you either "know" something as fact, or you "believe" it to be fact. Those are the ends of the spectrum.

Not all charity is for the poor. It's rather absurd to use evolution as an excuse to get out of giving. In fact, evolution rather encourages us to help the needy. I'll let you chew on that and try to figure it out.

I'm not chewing on anything. It wasn't my argument. It was a friend of mine who believed in individualism at the expense of everything else. He didn't believe in God. He didn't believe in men. He only believed in himself.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Just to test this, do any of you atheists here (OA, Bronco Bob, freak, etc)consider yourself social Darwinist? That is a pretty arcane idea these days. I don't personally know any atheist who adheres to that kind of thinking.

I don't know anyone who would call themselves a social darwinist. Nobody wants that label. Likewise, there aren't a lot of Aryans who will call themselves Nazis.

I'd wager that you know more athiests who subscribe to some form of social darwinism though than you think you do. In fact, you'll find a lot of Americans (even those who would call themselves Christians) who subscribe to the belief, though they would never call it that. Listen to Rush Limbaugh for any amount of time and tell me he isn't a social darwinist. Of course, he'd deny it. But the label isn't the important thing here... It's how you apply your beliefs.

[orangeatheist]

Originally Posted by Taco John

I don't know about anybody else, but I'm not referring to "giving" money to charity. I'm talking about the giving of yourself to philanthropic service.

Hey, I'm here out of my love of humanity, trying to hatchet my way through human ignorance to bring the light of Reason and Free Thought to the lost on this forum! What more do you want? You want to bleed me to death?

But, seriously, I know a number of non-believers who give of their time and energy for worthy causes. Two weeks ago my brother and his son (both non-believers) gave of their time to help with a Habitat for Humanity project. I haven't done anything of late --with a 3 and 5 year old I barely have time for myself outside work-- but I've volunteered in the past for worthy causes.

Originally Posted by Taco John

Paint it how you want. I have no stake in how you want to frame your beliefs, or whether you want to frame them as something other than "beliefs." However you want to frame it, the dichotomy is you either "know" something as fact, or you "believe" it to be fact. Those are the ends of the spectrum.

And there are no in-betweens? Such as having enough convincing evidence to rule out other possibilities other than the one remaining? Of course, you don't need to be dogmatic about it and you can allow that falsifiable evidence could come to light in the future and change your mind; but, for now, you are firmly convinced of a particular idea. This isn't "belief" but acceptance based upon overwhelming evidence.

Originally Posted by Taco John

I'm not chewing on anything. It wasn't my argument. It was a friend of mine who believed in individualism at the expense of everything else. He didn't believe in God. He didn't believe in men. He only believed in himself.

And, thus, he wasn't representative of anyone but himself.

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by Taco John

Yeah, I know exactly what that scripture means. I've been a part of Bible study since I was an adolescent. In fact, I didn't take it out of context at all. Nor have I taken out of context the fact that Jesus ran from his attackers. It's the truth.

Being a Christian isn't about protecting yourself. It's about giving up the self, and serving others. Christ was the ultimate pacifist.

I take issue with your charactarization that I have any sort of hatred for Christianity. I find true Christianity the most noble cause in the world. I will admit, though, that I have a distaste for your distortion of it. Nothing you have presented is scriptural in any way, whereas, on the other hand, everything I've said has been backed up by scriptures, none of which I've taken out of context as you say.

Ugh...what a losing battle this place is. I don't know what else to say man. I didn't take any scriptures out of context. I didn't distort any part of it either. I'm not advocating killing people in the name of Jesus. I'm simply saying Jesus would not have a problem with self-defense...which this conversations started with. He is not a pacifist, nor ever was.

And how again is nothing I've presented scriptural, when all I've done is quote scripture, pain and clear? Or is that just selective memory? And what I lack in getting my point across, I substituted with a link that explains clearly Jesus' stance on war.

I don't care if you've been part of a Bible study...what does that mean? You clearly don't believe what it is you learn though...or you choose to only hear what you want, which is a major problem today.

The scripture's I posted are clear as day...not only that, but for the last time...God sent HIS OWN people into battle...yeah thats a pacifist for you.

I'm finished with this merry-go-round.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by orangeatheist

And there are no in-betweens?

Not really, no.

Such as having enough convincing evidence to rule out other possibilities other than the one remaining?

You're saying that the theory of Darwinism has ruled out all other possibilities and is the only one remaining possibility? Even with all of its problems?

Darwinism might be the best explination that is currently popular, but it's hardly bullet-proof. You have to ignore a lot of evidence and even missing evidence to come to the conclusion that it is the only one remaining possibility.

Of course, you don't need to be dogmatic about it and you can allow that falsifiable evidence could come to light in the future and change your mind; but, for now, you are firmly convinced of a particular idea. This isn't "belief" but acceptance based upon overwhelming evidence.

Sounds like denial to me. You don't want to be painted with "believing" something. You want to come across as more rational and grounded, and say that you accept something based on the prevailing thought. But in the end, it's still just a belief, because it's not a knowing. If you don't know something, but you accept something based on your faith in the prevailing interpretation of the evidence, it's still nothing more than "belief."

And for the record, that's all Darwinism is: faith in the prevailing interpretation of the evidence, despite the gaps that exist in the theory. Perhaps you believe that those gaps will be filled in due time? Or, excuse me, perhaps you accept that those gaps will be filled in due time?