Buffman

YES! YES! YES! This is the direction that is the most positive and constructive for non-theists...and everyone else. Those are three of the most heartening posts I have read in years.

Alonzo Fyfe

But don't we already do these things?

I do.

It is the case that "atheism" does not get the credit for what I do. This is because I do not do these things because I am an atheist. I do these things because I care about people. Nobody needs to know that I am an atheist to appreciate the benefits they receive. I do not stamp my beliefs on the check I send to the American Cancer Society.

So, perhaps, the point you are making is not that we should do these things -- because we do. But that we should do them in such a way so as to make sure that atheism gets a part of the credit. We should wear an atheist label while we perform our good deeds, as it were.

Because the problem is not that we do not do these things. The problem is that we do them without impressing on those who benefit that they are obtaining that benefit from an atheist.

Perhaps we SHOULD create atheist charities and have our charitable contributions funneled through them. Perhaps it would be better if those organizations received a large check from Atheists United to Better the World, rather than a stack of smaller checks from Alonzo Fyfe and others. Perhaps we should wear an atheist label while we do our good deeds -- just as christians wear their cross (but not a walking fish -- evolution and atheism are not same thing).

It is worthy of discussion.

Though I still have some distaste for the implication that atheists are not charitable and that we must change to become so.

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

capsaicin67

Hmmmm. That's an intersting reaction, Alonzo. Certainly worth thinking over.
Personally, I don't think that atheists aren't charitable at all. But I do think that in the real world being visible in our charitability might be a wise move for outreach. In a pure and perfect utopian world we would all be very subdued in our desire for any type of publicity or demonstrations of generosity. But the world is run on visibility, marketing, competition. I like your suggestion of running donations through a nontheistic outlet. Or simply a humanistic charity like any other that works toward good causes and we can send our money to, too. Somehow this is important or there wouldn't be so many others doing it. For example, I don't remember ever even hearing about the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation prior to the whole Microsoft Trial period. Why don't they just send money anonymously? Because they are really doing marketing, too. Emotionally something about that does not feel quite right, but I also recognize that we may be limiting ourselves not doing it.
Incidentally, when I was involved in UUism I was doing some research to try and convince them to do better outreach and young adult integration, and while I can no longer cite the source, some of their own literature shared that UU's were some of the least financially generous when it came to giving to their church. However, I also saw that many of them *were* involved in the community very actively. Not sure what was going on there, maybe what you describe.
Hmmmm. Dunno. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Autonemesis

<a href="http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/charity.htm" target="_blank">Concerning Christian Charity</a>

Dr. Tim Gorski: If Christianity were so spectacularly marked by the urge to give to others without asking anything in return, Christian institutions would have done far more than they have. As it is, almost all religious hospitals, clinics, schools, and colleges charge and collect fees that are the same as, or very little different than, similar non-religious organizations. Those associated with religious groups may receive modest or token subsidies, either in the form of cash from generous believers (and unbelievers!) or in the form of free labor provided by an order of monks, nuns, priests, and other volunteers. But the secular organizations engaged in the same activities manage not only to survive without such help but pay taxes to the state and dividends to their shareholders as well. A reasonable person would conclude that the religiously affiliated schools and hospitals, far from being praiseworthy examples of altruism, are, in fact, inefficient and wasteful of money and resources.

<a href="http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9719.htm" target="_blank">God Doesn't Do Charity Work, People Do</a>

Cliff Walker: I do not support "atheist" helping organizations because I see the act of stumping for atheism (disguised as a helping effort) to be an inferior motive and to border on immorality.

Rusting Car Bumper

Alonzo,

Perhaps you should re-read my statement more carefully. I believe I addressed all of this. What I didn't address directly can be easily derived from waht I said.

We *must* change what it means to be a non-believer. When it means to be a non-believer now is someone who for c-s seperation and someone who is against religion. Factual or not... That's what we are seen as and frankly that's mostly all that we do.

Yes and no. First off I don't give a rat's ass about "Atheism." I don't care if you call yourself atheist, agnostic, secular humanist, blah blah blah. Nonbelievers of all stripes, regardless of labels, have more in common than not in common. That is why I generally used the word, "non-believer."

Secondly, I stated quite clearly that we are not doing it to gain brownie points.

We are doing it (1) because its the right thing to do, (2) its the right thing to do *as non-believers* and (3) it will change what it means to be a non-believer if done in large enough numbers.

Its not just giving money. It is DOING.

My example with children was quite deliberate. What does an atheist or freethought club do if they form in a local high school? Argue amongst themselves or with believers, or would they or everybody be better served if they found something good to do for the community so that they are LEADERS and SET AN EXAMPLE of good citizenship?

Tough luck. That's not your call to make nor mine. As non-believers we are bound by facts and reason. Facts and reason in this case dicate that, the public at large already thinks you are not moral and many think you are not a good citizen. Tough cookies that you don't like it. That's the way it is. Now... What are you prepared to do about it?

One must do what is necessary to change it but like righting many wrongs the road is paved with shovelling shit and getting soaked in the rain.

People spilled their blood for freedom of conscience of their own choce. They sent their children to die for it. As atheists, that is the Ultimate sacrifice as that is all they can give because there is no heavenly reward for them.

I certainly am not going to complain about little inconvenience of method because it involes my resenting what names other people call me. When my name is called, I am duty bound to answer. Not all battles are fought with guns. Many are fought with words, intellect and a deep felt need to change one's inner spirit.

One must have vision. This is a long term idea. It may not come to full realization in your lifetime. Certainly the fruits of Martin Luther King's vision didn't come to fruition in his.

DC

Rusting Car Bumper

I don't want to "stump for atheism". I want to stump for the good works of people. I want to make whole MLK's "content of people's character" comment and apply it toward my non-belief.

I want to change what non-belief is.

BTW, I know Dr. Tim Gorski, the first person you quoted, personally. I can say he wholeheartedly supports the philosophy I propose.

DC

Buffman

I want to make whole MLK's "content of people's character" comment and apply it toward my non-belief.

Personally I have been attempting to do that for my entire lifetime. I call it personal integrity based on the best available accurate knowledge.

However, how does anyone come to know that my example of personal integrity is free of supernatural beliefs?

Alonzo Fyfe

Please calm down. I did not disagree with you. I did not say that you were wrong.

I did say that I, for one, and others (I suspect) are more generous with our time and money than you seem to give us credit for. But agreed that we are still not SEEN as generous because those benefits are not seen as having come from a non-believer.

But that's a minor point.

Yes, freethought clubs tend to focus almost exclusively on argument and fighting for CSS issues. Just as the chess club focuses almost exclusively on playing chess, and drama club focuses almost exclusively on putting on plays.

The point is that when a non-believer wants to debate religion and CSS issues, he goes to the freethought club, and when he wants to help the poor he goes to Habitat for Humanity; when he wants to mentor a child he goes to Big Brothers and Big Sisters.

And so the freethought club gets the image of a bunch of arrogant intellects who do nothing but complain about religion -- even though its members live varied lives, their charitable work is not attributable to the fact that they are freethinkers.

Which creates an image problem, as you said.

Rusting Car Bumper

I'm not sure how you could ascertain that I was not "calm."

Be that uncertianty as it may, I can assure you that you are most assuredly mistaken. I may write passionately and with too much allegory and methaphor. However, none of this should be mistaken for not being not "calm."

To address your point regarding chess clubs and so on. There is nothing in the name nor title of "Freethought organization" or "atheist organizations" that concludes that they must be about CSS issues and religion debunking in the way chess clubs must be about chess.

DC

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: DigitalChicken ]</p>

CaptainDave

DigitalChicken makes GREAT points. I agree that it is VERY important to change our image and that there is much work to be done to accomplish that. Secular charities are a great idea!

That said, I also think it is unwise to let someone walk all over you. That's why nearly every nation on Earth has a diplomatic arm AND a military.

Some of us are more disposed to take the first course of action (improve our image) while others are more disposed to take the second (go head-to-head with the opposition). I think both are neccesary.

Those who are inclined to improve our image need not be opposed to those who are inclined to take the bull by the horns - or the reverse! It is simply neccesary for both to act without sabotaging the efforts of the other. We're just two sides to the same coin. We need to coordinate with each other rather than argue with each other.