Some fourteen atheism as anti-theism groups have joined forces in order to form the “Non-Believers Giving Aid” charity which will immediately assist Haiti and will continue to collect funds for future uses.
It is, of course, quite commendable that so many atheist organizations would come together for such as worthy cause—no question about it whatsoever.
Yet, being groups which define their atheism as anti-theism, in the negative, they cannot even affirm their concern for the needy, they cannot even be charitable, without using tragedy as a soapbox from which to preach their pseudo-gospel of atheist activism. The charity’s official webpage states that the forming of the charity was “Spurred by the horrific suffering in Haiti” and yet, their actual mission is based on 1) condemnation of theism/religion 2) unfounded assertions.
As for 1) they point out two advantages offered by the charity: 1) 100% of donations reach the people in need and 2) “When donating via Non-Believers Giving Aid, you are helping to counter the scandalous myth that only the religious care about their fellow-humans.”
The true myth is that there are people who think that “only the religious care about their fellow-humans.” In, sadly, typical atheist activist form, they prop up straw-man and straw-God arguments and then when they succeed in defeating them they only succeed in defeating fallacies of their own making.
The bulk of the official webpage is dedicated to condemning theism/religion:
Preachers and televangelists, mullahs and imams, often seem almost to gloat over natural disasters – presenting them as payback for human transgressions, or for ‘making a pact with the devil’. Earthquakes and tsunamis are caused not by ‘sin’ but by tectonic plate movements, and tectonic plates, like everything else in the physical world, are supremely indifferent to human affairs and sadly indifferent to human suffering. Those of us who understand this reality are sometimes accused of being indifferent to that suffering ourselves. Of course the very opposite is the truth: we do not hide behind the notion that earthly suffering will be rewarded in a heavenly paradise, nor do we expect a heavenly reward for our generosity: the understanding that this is the only life any of us have makes the need to alleviate suffering even more urgent. The myth that it is only the religious who truly care is sustained largely by the fact that they tend to donate not as individuals, but through their churches. Non-believers, by contrast, give as individuals: we have no church through which to give collectively, no church to rack up statistics of competitive generosity.
Non-Believers Giving Aid is not a church (that’s putting it mildly) but it does provide an easy conduit for the non-religious to help those in desperate need, whilst simultaneously giving the lie to the canard that you need God to be good.
In continuum this statement will be dissected and critiqued.
It is quite true that some theists commit the fallacy of newspaper theology and present natural disasters as payback for human transgressions. That earthquakes and tsunamis are not due to “sin” (note that they quote the word sin) is certainly a claim to absolute knowledge but setting that aside; the author of the statement quoted in the previous segment agreed with Jesus when Jesus stated:
Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered,
“Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish” (Luke 13:1-5).
Also, note 1st Kings 19:11-12,
the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind tore into the mountains and broke the rocks in pieces before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice.
The Bible occasionally affirms that natural disasters are retribution for sin but these are particular and rare events. Generally, the Bible treats natural disasters as natural disasters.
Now, the assertion was made that while nature is “supremely indifferent” those who presuppose atheism—in asserting that “this is the only life any of us have”—“need to alleviate suffering even more urgent.” Again, it is certainly virtuous to affirm that we need to alleviate suffering yet, it is actually not being affirmed but asserted. Since nature is supremely indifferent it is humans who need to alleviate suffering yet, if nature is supremely indifferent whence comes this ethical imperative which asserts that we need to?
Since nature is supremely indifferent the claim that we need to is not ontological, it is not based on nature—which is, after all, all that atheists have. Thus, it is an epistemic statement concocted by some humans and imposed upon others. Note that the issue, at this level, is not whether the imperative is logical or ethical but that it is a mere assertion.
Richard Dawkins made an effort to account for altruism in referring to it as “misfirings, Darwinian mistakes: blessed, precious mistakes.”[2] Moreover, as a scientist/biologist he sought to evidence this by comparing human beings whose brains can compute 20 million billion calculations per second to birdbrains—quite literally to bird’s brains, such as the cuckoos.[3] (see Altruism or Allfalseism for details).
But let us grant it and say “Fine,” since surely the Haitians do not care that the “Non-Believers Giving Aid” charity is premised upon anti-theism atheist activism or that their ethical imperatives are epistemic assertions and not ontologically premised—they simply need and appreciate the help. Indeed, yet, atheists do not grant it and say “Fine” when it comes to religious charities who are helping the needy, they do not disregard the motivation, the premise, the affirmation or assertion, the epistemology or ontology. Rather, they besmirch the charity due to its premise even while the needy just need and appreciate the assistance.
Note that the reference to reward in a heavenly paradise is fallacious as the atheist is presupposing to know the thoughts and motivations of the religious donor. It is assumed that they are being charitable due to an expectation of heavenly reward for generosity. Yet, this is quite illogical as it is a false dichotomy which juxtaposes either 1) giving due to concern for the needy or 2) giving due to expecting reward in heaven. There are, at least, two other options which defeat the false dichotomy; 3) the theist could be motivated by both 1) and 2) and 4) they could be motivated by 1) while not even considering 2). This is drawn out in detail in the following essays:
Theism’s Reward and Punishment Versus Atheism’s Pure Motives
Do Only Atheists Have Pure Motives?
Only Atheists Have Pure Motives
The myth of a myth “that it is only the religious who truly care” and that this is due to the religious donating “not as individuals, but through their churches” (another presumptuous false dichotomy as the religious do both) while atheists “give as individuals” is perhaps due an attempt to explain away the fact that studies consistently show that atheists, agnostics and or liberals, for that matter, are amongst the least charitable amongst us (evidence found here and here).
Also, note the obligatory jab via another presumption to know thoughts and motivations as it is asserted that churches engage in charity in order to “rack up statistics of competitive generosity.” This is a road down which atheists should not tread as it is these 14 groups who have premised their charity upon condemnation of theism/religion, in order to bust pseudo-myths of their own well-within-the-atheist-group-think-box making, and to boast of atheist charity.
The last fallacy of the statement is that there is a “canard that you need God to be good.” Agreed, this is a canard; a canard of atheist activist authorship. The claim is not that atheists cannot be good without God but that without God they cannot account for being good beyond referencing their personal preferences that are based on personal preferences. They cannot appeal to nature, as nature is “supremely indifferent” and cannot provide an ontological premise and so their “morality” ends up amounting to dogmatheistic assertions. Certainly needful, clearly charitable, surely appreciated yet, devoid of the supposed science or reason upon which atheists vacuously claim to base their atheism.
Moreover, the good without God notion was popularized by bus ads which brings us to the final point. For the past few years atheists worldwide have been wasting tremendous amounts of money via donations not in order to help anyone in any real material need but in order to purchase bus ads and billboards though which they seek to demonstrated just how clever they consider themselves to be.
Imagine—imagine the help they could have offered the needy during at time of recession and disaster if instead of wasting money stroking their egos they would have put that money towards charitable causes. What they got instead is worldwide, loudly and proudly displayed examples of their illogicality via atheist group think as their concocted fallacy begat fallacy and gave fodder through which to discredit them evermore.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.