Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: loco on December 04, 2007, 04:49:48 PM
-
"We atheists have to accept that most believers are better human beings"
Roy Hattersley
Monday September 12, 2005
Guardian
Hurricane Katrina did not stay on the front pages for long. Yesterday's Red Cross appeal for an extra 40,000 volunteer workers was virtually ignored.
The disaster will return to the headlines when one sort of newspaper reports a particularly gruesome discovery or another finds additional evidence of President Bush's negligence. But month after month of unremitting suffering is not news. Nor is the monotonous performance of the unpleasant tasks that relieve the pain and anguish of the old, the sick and the homeless - the tasks in which the Salvation Army specialise.
The Salvation Army has been given a special status as provider-in-chief of American disaster relief. But its work is being augmented by all sorts of other groups. Almost all of them have a religious origin and character.
Notable by their absence are teams from rationalist societies, free thinkers' clubs and atheists' associations - the sort of people who not only scoff at religion's intellectual absurdity but also regard it as a positive force for evil.
The arguments against religion are well known and persuasive. Faith schools, as they are now called, have left sectarian scars on Northern Ireland. Stem-cell research is forbidden because an imaginary God - who is not enough of a philosopher to realise that the ingenuity of a scientist is just as natural as the instinct of Rousseau's noble savage - condemns what he does not understand and the churches that follow his teaching forbid their members to pursue cures for lethal diseases.
Yet men and women who believe that the Pope is the devil incarnate, or (conversely) regard his ex cathedra pronouncements as holy writ, are the people most likely to take the risks and make the sacrifices involved in helping others. Last week a middle-ranking officer of the Salvation Army, who gave up a well-paid job to devote his life to the poor, attempted to convince me that homosexuality is a mortal sin.
Late at night, on the streets of one of our great cities, that man offers friendship as well as help to the most degraded and (to those of a censorious turn of mind) degenerate human beings who exist just outside the boundaries of our society. And he does what he believes to be his Christian duty without the slightest suggestion of disapproval. Yet, for much of his time, he is meeting needs that result from conduct he regards as intrinsically wicked.
Civilised people do not believe that drug addiction and male prostitution offend against divine ordinance. But those who do are the men and women most willing to change the fetid bandages, replace the sodden sleeping bags and - probably most difficult of all - argue, without a trace of impatience, that the time has come for some serious medical treatment. Good works, John Wesley insisted, are no guarantee of a place in heaven. But they are most likely to be performed by people who believe that heaven exists.
The correlation is so clear that it is impossible to doubt that faith and charity go hand in hand. The close relationship may have something to do with the belief that we are all God's children, or it may be the result of a primitive conviction that, although helping others is no guarantee of salvation, it is prudent to be recorded in a book of gold, like James Leigh Hunt's Abu Ben Adam, as "one who loves his fellow men". Whatever the reason, believers answer the call, and not just the Salvation Army. When I was a local councillor, the Little Sisters of the Poor - right at the other end of the theological spectrum - did the weekly washing for women in back-to-back houses who were too ill to scrub for themselves.
It ought to be possible to live a Christian life without being a Christian or, better still, to take Christianity à la carte. The Bible is so full of contradictions that we can accept or reject its moral advice according to taste. Yet men and women who, like me, cannot accept the mysteries and the miracles do not go out with the Salvation Army at night.
The only possible conclusion is that faith comes with a packet of moral imperatives that, while they do not condition the attitude of all believers, influence enough of them to make them morally superior to atheists like me. The truth may make us free. But it has not made us as admirable as the average captain in the Salvation Army.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5283079-103390,00.html
-
One thing is for sure.
Religion has it's purpose for even with it we saw with Katrina just how close we came to falling into animal-istic chaos.
-
The author speaks for himself only.
He seems to have guilt issues.
-
The author speaks for himself only.
So you know for a fact that he is the only atheist in the world who admits this?
And what he stated about believer charities and about atheist charities is still true.
He seems to have guilt issues.
If you say so. Do you even know the author?
-
So you know for a fact that he is the only atheist in the world who admits this?
And what he stated about believer charities and about atheist charities is still true.
If you say so. Do you even know the author?
This is an old, hackneyed utilitarian argument: religion makes people behave better.
And yet it is thoroughly fallacious for it that were the case countries such as Denmark, Norway and Sweden, with majorities of non-believers in the populace, would be the worst behaved and yet these countries rank at the top of the lists for charity, generosity, etc. Sweden has taken in thousands of Iraqi refugees, many, many more than the gloriously religous USA.
Ultimately (to me) it does not matter whether religion is tantamount to moral viagra or not. I care only for whether or not the claims (metaphysical, historical and scientific) of religion are true.
-
loco, the first hint that he doesn't know what he is talking about is when he says "We atheists."
"Atheists" are not a group, like Christians or Southern Baptists. "Atheists" are as much a "We" as those who don't believe in astrology, or those who don't do rain dances to appease the rain gods. Namely, "atheist" is not a well-defined group.
My own experience is that non-believers can usually be found doing good alongside believers, except non-believers are less likely to waste time preaching the Word, and more likely to spend all their resources doing the actual work. Far too many believers think that prayer in and of itself is a "good" act: that is, they feel that by praying for the poor/sufferers, they have done their fair share.
Non-believers don't think that talking to imaginary friends does any good, and they know that, if you want something done, you have to go out there and do it yourself, not wait for gods and the saints and the angels...
Finally, you mention "atheist charities". Obviously that doesn't make any sense. There are religious charities, and there are secular charities. Secular charities (e.g. Oxfam) just don't get into the whole religion business, and they are open to volunteers and donations from believers and non-believers alike.
I volunteer for a local group that is secular, and we are believers and non-believers alike working together.
-
loco, the first hint that he doesn't know what he is talking about is when he says "We atheists."
"Atheists" are not a group, like Christians or Southern Baptists. "Atheists" are as much a "We" as those who don't believe in astrology, or those who don't do rain dances to appease the rain gods. Namely, "atheist" is not a well-defined group.
Fair enough. I see your point.
My own experience is that non-believers can usually be found doing good alongside believers, except non-believers are less likely to waste time preaching the Word, and more likely to spend all their resources doing the actual work. Far too many believers think that prayer in and of itself is a "good" act: that is, they feel that by praying for the poor/sufferers, they have done their fair share.
Non-believers don't think that talking to imaginary friends does any good, and they know that, if you want something done, you have to go out there and do it yourself, not wait for gods and the saints and the angels...
I am very sorry that has been your experience with theist charities. Christian charities know that it takes more than prayers and intentions to help the needy, it takes action, hard work and sacrifice.
Many Christian charities help the needy without ever preaching to them. They understand that all the needy need to know is that their help came from Christians. Then, if they wish to know more about Christianity, they can ask a Christian or go to their nearest local church. Preaching to them is never a requirement and it is even discouraged many times.
Finally, you mention "atheist charities". Obviously that doesn't make any sense. There are religious charities, and there are secular charities. Secular charities (e.g. Oxfam) just don't get into the whole religion business, and they are open to volunteers and donations from believers and non-believers alike.
You are right, I meant "secular charities". My mistake!
I volunteer for a local group that is secular, and we are believers and non-believers alike working together.
I don't necessarily echo what this atheist author says about believers being more human or morally superior to atheists. I believe God put a moral law inside all of us, theists and atheists alike. Posts like this are meant mainly to show that religion does not poison everything and to show that believers are not evil, as some atheists out there would like us all to believe.
-
OF COURSE believers are not evil, and neither I (nor Christopher Hitchens, whose book's subtitle you mention) ever said that.
BTW loco, what do you think of the work of Mother Teresa? You probably haven't read Christopher Hitchens' book about her, "The Missionary Position," it's a very good insight into the cult of Mother Teresa.
Basically, she wasn't a friend of the poor, she was a friend of poverty. She wasn't a friend of sufferers, she was a friend of suffering. She believed that suffering, disease, and poverty were a way for the poor to share in the suffering of Jesus. So instead of using all the millions and millions in donations that she received to build hospitals and buy meds, she used it to build monasteries, and provided sub-human standards of care to the poor people who ended up in her "House of the Dying"...
-
That article is insulting crapola.
Atheist organizations--whatever they may be--are likely organized to advocate the idea of atheism....not engage in humanitarian efforts.
Religious orgs exist, for the most part, to bring in recruits--spread the word through sermons and deeds. What better way to convert others than feeding, clothing and housing them in a time of need? Read Shaw's play Major Barbara. It's on point.
-
OF COURSE believers are not evil, and neither I (nor Christopher Hitchens, whose book's subtitle you mention) ever said that.
BTW loco, what do you think of the work of Mother Teresa? You probably haven't read Christopher Hitchens' book about her, "The Missionary Position," it's a very good insight into the cult of Mother Teresa.
Basically, she wasn't a friend of the poor, she was a friend of poverty. She wasn't a friend of sufferers, she was a friend of suffering. She believed that suffering, disease, and poverty were a way for the poor to share in the suffering of Jesus. So instead of using all the millions and millions in donations that she received to build hospitals and buy meds, she used it to build monasteries, and provided sub-human standards of care to the poor people who ended up in her "House of the Dying"...
i did not know this.
"mother theresa, fuck her, i never knew her, i probably screw her and dump the body in the sewer"-biggie smalls(christian)