Atheist talking points about charity and how Atheists do “evidence”
Atheists’ (and Agnostics’) lack of charity is not only infamous but well evidenced. Thus, since Atheism is an anti-Christian support group; Atheists like to rely on the well-within-the-box-Atheist-group-think-talking-point-de-jour about how Christian charity is not done right.
It is not done in accordance to Atheist morality (whatever that is). Keep in mind that those infamous for not doing it are being critical of those who are famous for doing it.
For the evidence on this (and also relating to the politically conservative vs. liberals) see:
Are Atheists Healthy, Happy, Moral, etc.?
Charity – Secular Liberals vs. Religious Conservatives
Well, a recent discussion with an Atheist brought this out, again, and also elucidated the manner whereby some Atheists deal with evidence—accepted if convenient and rejected if not.
Here is how the relevant portions of the discussion went.
ATHEIST:
Consider the Catholics who do charity, they will tell you it’s their faith that makes them give to the poor, I’d argue that these same people would give even if tomorrow the church was destroyed or their faith lost. Watch the news, hear Obama talk about there being something within the American character that when a disaster strikes Americans roll up their selves and help each other out, listen to the Japanese prime minister after an earth quake, there’s something about the Japanese spirit that makes them join together and help their fellow man when disaster strikes. We have had many floods in Queensland, Australia, the premier of that state will tell us that there’s something in the character of the queen slander that makes them……you get the picture! [ellipses in original] How often do we hear the same thing about Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists etc. etc. It’s all the same, humans help out other humans, perhaps it’s a misfiring of genes meant to help us survive on the African deserts but I’m thankful whatever the reason.
Sorry, hope all this is clear, I can’t really sit for long and type and edit and re-edit, got kids to tend to.
In short, we both agree that human beings—in essence; regardless of theology—are (to whatever extent) charitable. At this point, the disagreement is that I would assert that it is because YHVH’s law (ethical code) is written in our hearts and he asserts that “perhaps it’s a misfiring of genes meant to help us survive.”
Actually, this is a very important point as when Atheists turn Darwinism into a worldview they assert that ethics evolved. Yet, nature cares not for ethics but survival only. Thus, that to which they are referring are merely survival enhancing actions and not ethics (or, morals as some would term it; see Ethics and Morals).
ME:
I am uncertain whether it is accurate that “Catholics…would give even if tomorrow the church was destroyed or their faith lost” simply because studies consistently demonstrate that atheists and agnostics are the least charitable amongst us.
This is not a pop-shot, by the way, but simply the result of real research even though, yes, people will generally join together and help their fellow man when disaster strikes.
ATHEIST:
My wife and I donate hundreds of hours of her time to charity, it would be interesting to see the amount of money atheists donate to charity that helps people in the real world, compared to the amount that goes to churches, bible studies, proselytizing, etc. donated to Christian charities, are the donations for new church, etc. or simply the amount of bread in a mouth per dollar spent. All charity is not equal. Religious charity is often a poisoned challis. Here’s some bread, now take this bible, listen about Jesus, donate to our church. I’m not really interested in the studies on charity, if they are not as floored as the ones that claim atheists represent more in the prison system I’d be surprised.
Statistics can be made to support any claim. Politicians of both sides will present statistics to prove each side of the debate. Statistics are largely useless.
Note that I had referenced studies and research but he personalizes it to “My wife and I.” In other words; he feels that he can disregards studies and research because they do not pertain to two people (assuming that his wife is also an Atheist).
Note also the he is “not really interested in the studies on charity” because, “Statistics can be made to support any claim” and are thus, “largely useless.” Certainly, statistics are what they are after all yet, note that when he perceives that studies and research will not demonstrate that which he wants to see; he simply disregards them a priori.
Note the premise upon which he criticizes Christian charity; it is somehow bad, wrong, immoral (or whatever) because some of the donated funds go towards, “churches, bible studies, proselytizing, etc.” and is thus from a, “poisoned challis.” Firstly, even this sort of Christian charity is better than any Atheist lack thereof. Secondly, charities, Christian or not, are for certain purposes and, when done right, would denote to what they money is going. Thirdly, of course, since Atheists hold to materialism (by “faith”) they see no benefit in having someone receive physical bread as well as spiritual bread.
Finally, he is condemning Christian charities without first providing an ethical premise (except those ethical premised produced by misfiring of genes).
ME:
I can understand why you are not interested in studies on charity even though you rely on them to make your anti-Christian point.
I assumed that the way he knew about what Christian charities did and how they did it was based on some form of statistics, research, studies or at the very least reading news account (although, most likely, it was due to accepting talking points).
ATHEIST:
About the charity studies, let’s say there’s massive bodies of evidence supporting the idea that atheists are less charitable, let’s say the body of evidence is as compelling as the theory of gravity.
It would be interesting but would ONLY prove people that are atheists are less charitable.
I attest to you that this is not a joke but was quoted directly. Yes, he stated that if, of in his words let’s say that “there’s massive bodies of evidence supporting the idea that atheists are less charitable…It would…ONLY prove people that are atheists are less charitable.”
Finally, something upon which we can agree; if evidence supported the idea that Atheists are less charitable it would support the idea that Atheists are less charitable.
Well, that was the end of that; he did not even want to bother considering evidence he found inconvenient and yet, affirmed that if the evidence supported what it supported then it would only support what it supported—or…something.
We actually left off with a statement of his to the effect that “we” apparently he speaking for all Atheists “don’t believe I god but in the scientific method and the conclusions.”
Thus, I wrote the following and he never replied:
There are many things you stated that I would like to address but it would simply bloat our discourse so I will cut to the chase. If the Bible is unreliable that says nothing at all about God’s existence. If all arguments in favor of God’s existence fail that says nothing at all about God’s existence. Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with science. The scientific method was, largely, established by Bible believers and so “god” and “the scientific method” are not dichotomies. Yes, I realize that your “belief” is “as strong a belief you have in god” because you do not have proof or evidence that Atheism is true and thus, must believe in God’s non-existence by “faith.” You appear to assume that God’s existence is based on argument, evidence or proof. This is faulty and a presupposition of your worldview. In other words, you set up an image of God, a God made in your own image, and you test to see if that God exists. You inevitably find that it does not. Well, of course; to what other conclusion could you come?
So, if there’s inadequate evidence to prove the God claim (what claim is that, by the way?) to your satisfaction you must define your “satisfaction.” In other words, if you demand evidence (let us just start there) please justify your demand for evidence and then elucidate what such evidence would look like (keeping in mind that, for example, we do not demand dry evidence of a wet object).