10/30/08

Atheist Charity - A Huge Success

FYI: this post has been moved here.
Share |

TwitThis

Posted by Ken
Labels: , ,

15 comments:

  1. StuartM02October 31, 2008 at 1:31 AM

    Small points.

    Richard Dawkins has stated that he would have preferred the phrase "almost certainly" but was thought not catchy enough by the organisers (not that I think the chosen text is a copywriters dream).

    I shall be expecting a comparble reprimand for all advertising by religious groups, on buses or otherwise. There was ceratinly enough money spent promoting the Alpha course in the UK.

    There are many secular charities which religous and non-relgious people give money too. I fail to see what is the problem with supporting promoting a message you think is important. I don't belive this scheme was ever promoted as a charity?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Scary JesusOctober 31, 2008 at 8:10 AM

    Well it's hard to argue with this one. Hey atheists do seemingly dumb things at the same rate as theists. Not a big fan of Reginald Finley, not a big fan of the Rational Response Squad. I do love Christopher Hitchens though. Hey, you didn't expect this post to be 100% to your liking did you?

    ReplyDelete
  3. TaxandrianOctober 31, 2008 at 6:19 PM

    [joker voice] If tomorrow I put an advertisement on a bus that directs people to a website that tries to scare people into believing by telling them they're condemned to eternal torment, nobody panics, because it's all part of the plan. But when I put one little advertisement on a bus that wants people to be less scared and less worried,...well then everyone loses their minds!!![/joker voice]

    Really, Mariano. There are cases when it's better to just swallow your jealousy and remain silent about something. This is such a case.

    Oh, and about those Theos guys? Why not tell the whole story about how they changed their position on the atheist advertisement continually as donations kept pouring in:

    link

    ReplyDelete
  4. KenNovember 1, 2008 at 8:47 AM

    Taxandrian;
    Inferring jealousy is a non sequitur.
    May I retort: there are cases when it's better to just forgo your loyalty to all things atheistic and state something to the likes of, “Particularly in a time of worldwide financial woes UK atheists should be doing something to actually help people in need rather than attempting to demonstrate how cleaver they are.”
    Just an idea.
    aDios,
    Mariano

    ReplyDelete
  5. zilchNovember 1, 2008 at 10:48 AM

    Mariano- would you care to guess how much money is spent worldwide on advertising by Christians? I don't know either, but I'm willing to bet it's a couple orders of magnitude more than what atheists spend. All that money gone to waste, that could have gone to people in need.

    Myself, I spend no money on advertising. I do contribute a fair amount to people in need, and I'm an atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  6. metalozNovember 2, 2008 at 6:01 AM

    what a joke. The end

    ReplyDelete
  7. AdamHNovember 2, 2008 at 7:22 AM

    Scary J, so you are a big fan of Christopher Hitchens?

    Didn't know you like drunken advocates of war so much! LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  8. KenNovember 2, 2008 at 7:44 AM

    Zilch;
    Thanks for the comment. Please do not misunderstand, no one is arguing that atheists do not contribute.
    The vast chasm between religious and non-religious, or even conservative and liberal contribution, notwithstanding.

    Also, while surely large sums Christian advertising money goes to waste it is hyper-hyperbolic to assert that “All that money gone to waste” for two millennia Christian money has gone to people in need.

    aDios,
    Mariano

    ReplyDelete
  9. TaxandrianNovember 2, 2008 at 9:08 AM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. zilchNovember 2, 2008 at 11:22 AM

    Mariano- please reread my comment carefully. I said "money spent on advertising", not "all money spent by Christians". Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  11. AnonymousNovember 2, 2008 at 5:25 PM

    Mariano:

    "...no one is arguing that atheists do not contribute. The vast chasm between religious and non-religious, or even conservative and liberal contribution, notwithstanding.

    ...for two millennia Christian money has gone to people in need."

    What a superficial and self-serving mangling of the truth.

    To the extent that the money really went to those in dire need, that's all well and good – but you are out of touch with reality if you think that this is the way to bring prosperity and welfare to an entire society. Which raises the question of whether this is what you actually want to accomplish, by donating to charity, or whether your motivation derives from something else. (Social status? Looking good in the eyes of God?)

    Among the most egalitarian societies with the highest standards of living as well as the lowest levels of disparity and corruption are the secular welfare states of Scandinavia. In this welfare model, "charity" is compulsory by a high taxation burden followed by a redistribution of wealth[1]. In such a system you wouldn't stand out as any more charitable than the next guy, and you wouldn't be able to beat your chest saying "Admire me! Look how charitable I am!" Yet the system is demonstrably efficient and robust in establishing welfare and prosperity. As a Christian, wouldn't you want this?

    And now the GOPers call this "socialism" as if it were nothing short of Soviet communism. Social democracy has come a long way though, and to hear "socialism" decried by politicians that have made a mockery out of democracy is just laughable. You don't have democracy in the US. Here's some sobering reading: A dystopian vision.

    But aside from all that, I guess the question I want to ask you is: Do you value the admiration and social status that you gain by appearing to be a charitable person, above a system that can raise the standard of living for everybody at the expense of making everybody equally charitable and admirable?

    Here's a BHA article along the same lines.

    [1] And if you don't like this, no one is forcing you to live there; but these countries also rate very high on the "happy planet" and quality of life index, so it would seem that people are actually happy with the system.

    ReplyDelete
  12. VigilanteNovember 4, 2008 at 2:30 PM

    It is a telling statement, to be sure.
    They assume that religious people must always be "worried" and would like an escape from it. Not true.
    They assume that one cannot have joy in one's life if you believe in God, also not true.

    It reveals how warped their thinking is. TO THEM, believing God exists is worrisome, cause, *gulp*, they'd have to change their lifestyles a bit. Unless they have some other reason to worry about God. In fact, the only people who have to worry about God are the people not on his side. They have something to worry about. NOT the people who love Him. They have nothing to worry about, not even death.
    They apparently think THEY would not enjoy life if they believed in God. I guess they just completely ignore the joyful lives of millions of believers everywhere, and assume a love of Jesus and following him only brings unhappiness, which is totally bizarre. I read stories all the time of believers who find joy in the most desperate of situations, family tragedy, persecution, poverty, they find joy in God.

    Do they honestly think that becoming a believer is going to remove joy from your life and make you worry all the time? What a wacky thing to think.
    And for anybody in the faith who IS worried all the time, and is NOT experiencing any kind of joy, I daresay I wonder if they are really in the faith at all then?

    It seems they are trying to put words in people's mouths, and project feelings into believers that may not exist. What is a believer going to think when reading this sign? They'd think "um, I'm not worried at all, and I find much joy in life". But what is the unbeliever going to think? That all believers must be filled with worry and are unhappy, which is a big turnoff. It's unfortunate, but to me, this sign is preaching to the choir, stopping unbelievers from looking into faith because it makes them think it is only to make you unhappy and worried. The sign is NOT so much preaching to believers, because it is simply not true and doesn't speak to them.
    In other words, the sign is not a temptation for me, I don't worry, and the Bible teaches me how to find joy, Atheism doesn't teach me how to find joy.
    A better sign would say "God probably doesn't exist, so quit trying to live morally and go do all the sin you want."
    That sign would probably speak to believers a little stronger.

    ReplyDelete
  13. TaxandrianNovember 5, 2008 at 4:07 AM

    Vigilante, you managed to completely miss the point of the atheist bus campaign.

    If you had checked the facts or even followed the link (check 'God's wrath against sin'), you would have known that the atheist bus campaign was started to counter similar christian advertising which tried to scare people into believing.

    Scared people are definately worried.

    The fact though, that both you and Mariano don't even care about this kind of religious advertising, but instead choose to attack the atheist banners which wish to counter it, says a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  14. **November 5, 2008 at 11:53 AM

    The BIG Question now is: What will they do with these funds?
    - Feed the hungry?
    - Clothe the naked?
    - Help the Sick?

    I suspect that these funds will be used ideologically instead of humanely.

    ReplyDelete
  15. KenNovember 8, 2008 at 2:47 PM

    Adonais;
    You are counter arguing against an argument that I never made. No one said anything about “the way to bring prosperity and welfare to an entire society.”

    The question of motivation is a self-serving one raised by atheist who appear to think that they can read minds yet, it one demonstrates prejudice.

    Sorry, no interested in discussing politics or emotive charges of chest beating.

    aDios,
    Mariano

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)