Why do you need an eternal reward as a bribe to be good?

Euler

Junior Member
Sep 6, 2014
1,163
20
40
✟9,028.00
Faith
Atheist
5. and 6. These also do not relate to your claims about atheists. They seek to show theists in a better light.

And they are bunk.

When you remove the donating that the religious do to their own organizations, there is little difference between the religious and the non-religious in their generosity. The same applies to volunteering hours.

However, this again says NOTHING about your claims regarding atheists having no morality, or that "they don't want to apply higher morality or ethics in their lives."
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
5. and 6. These also do not relate to your claims about atheists. They seek to show theists in a better light.

And they are bunk.

When you remove the donating that the religious do to their own organizations, there is little difference between the religious and the non-religious in their generosity. The same applies to volunteering hours.

However, this again says NOTHING about your claims regarding atheists having no morality, or that "they don't want to apply higher morality or ethics in their lives."

Many have told this poster about the credibility of his sources and he keeps posting them.
 
Upvote 0

TheyCallMeDavid

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2013
3,301
99
69
Florida
✟4,108.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
1. Your first 'source' is an unreferenced survey conducted by a religious organization. It offers no link to data, nor to the supposed Canadian researchers that they claim to have conducted it. This is an example of your "unbiased, independent Scientific Study"!?

No. It was reference . Had you scrolled down to the Sources you would have found it. Here it is : 1. Good Without God, But Better With God? by Reginald W. Bibby.

If you truly want the truth behind the Study, then im sure you can google for more. Its okay if you show some initiative.
 
Upvote 0

TheyCallMeDavid

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2013
3,301
99
69
Florida
✟4,108.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
2. Your second reference comes also from the godandscience website and refers to a survey done by the Barna organization - an evangelical Christian group! Moreover, while the .....cough, spit.....'researchers' go into some detail about what they consider an "evangelical" to be, they offer no breakdown or analysis of how they determined the other groups within their survey! More of your INDEPENDENT science I presume?


Barna Institute is one of THE most highly recognized reporting entities. Even our U.S. Government relies on their research data and quotes it on Prime Time News TV .

The Other Groups are considered to be NON Christian Groups. Atheism particularly. Cough, spit, sneeze, spit....Im not affiliated with the Studies --- I just report the facts. Why wouldn't Atheists be viewed lower in morality since theyre pet ideology is moral relativism with no ultimate moral culpability.
 
Upvote 0

Euler

Junior Member
Sep 6, 2014
1,163
20
40
✟9,028.00
Faith
Atheist
No. It was reference . Had you scrolled down to the Sources you would have found it. Here it is : 1. Good Without God, But Better With God? by Reginald W. Bibby.

If you truly want the truth behind the Study, then im sure you can google for more. Its okay if you show some initiative.

And just who is RW Bibby?.......

Professor Bibby has conducted research and analyzes in Canada for the United, Anglican, Presbyterian, and Alliance churches, along with the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. He also is well-known to Roman Catholics and many other groups as a researcher, writer, and consultant.

Yes, more of that "independent, unbiased" science that you're so fond of!
 
Upvote 0

Skaloop

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion
May 10, 2006
16,332
899
47
Burnaby
Visit site
✟29,046.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-NDP
No. It was reference . Had you scrolled down to the Sources you would have found it. Here it is : 1. Good Without God, But Better With God? by Reginald W. Bibby.

If you truly want the truth behind the Study, then im sure you can google for more. Its okay if you show some initiative.

Here's a link to a rebuttal to the Bibby study. It reflects many of the issues I had with the very short article and limited data (the primary of which is that it only shows the "very important" results).

“Good Without God, But Better With God?” | Tiny Frog
 
Upvote 0

TheyCallMeDavid

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2013
3,301
99
69
Florida
✟4,108.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
3. and 4. These references relate to the opinions that others have about atheists! And, surprise, surprise, in a nation that is largely theist in its outlook, atheists are not highly regarded as a group. However, this says NOTHING about the moral behavior of atheists - it merely says that those who aren't atheists don't like them. We are already very aware of the prejudices that the religious demonstrate towards groups that are not them - check some of the references above that I provided for Jellyfish

So, these have no bearing on your claim. You're stalling.

These Studies relate to the FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE people have had with atheists which they draw their conclusions about Atheists. America is no longer centered on Theism and Christianity...rather : Secular Humanism and the non personal / non intelligent Big Bang pseudo science to try and write off a personal Creator for the personal intelligent-based effects we have as a reality . True, atheists are not highly regarded as a Group --- their daily behavior and talk are congruent with perceived lowlife living typically incorporating foul and vile language in public with no shame. Many non Christian Groups view atheists the same way. Further, atheistic Secular Humanism IS a religion also...so welcome aboard the Religionist Train.
 
Upvote 0

Euler

Junior Member
Sep 6, 2014
1,163
20
40
✟9,028.00
Faith
Atheist
These Studies relate to the FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE people have had with atheists which they draw their conclusions about Atheists. America is no longer centered on Theism and Christianity...rather : Secular Humanism and the non personal / non intelligent Big Bang pseudo science to try and write off a personal Creator for the personal intelligent-based effects we have as a reality . True, atheists are not highly regarded as a Group --- their daily behavior and talk are congruent with perceived lowlife living typically incorporating foul and vile language in public with no shame. Many non Christian Groups view atheists the same way. Further, atheistic Secular Humanism IS a religion also...so welcome aboard the Religionist Train.

We have known for a long time the intolerance that religious zealots demonstrate towards those who are different to them. This is not news.

However, it does NOT provide evidence that atheists lack morals. Only that people like you think we do.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TheyCallMeDavid

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2013
3,301
99
69
Florida
✟4,108.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
5. and 6. These also do not relate to your claims about atheists. They seek to show theists in a better light.

And they are bunk.

When you remove the donating that the religious do to their own organizations, there is little difference between the religious and the non-religious in their generosity. The same applies to volunteering hours.

However, this again says NOTHING about your claims regarding atheists having no morality, or that "they don't want to apply higher morality or ethics in their lives."

Both of these directly relate to Atheists . And they do show Theists in a better light. They are only 'bunk' to someone who the truth is being told about. There is a stark difference between what atheists and CHristians financially give AND the amount of time and energy they donate for humanitarian projects ; can you name me just One atheist based Organization that assisted when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans ? Can you name any atheist based Organizations that go into Nursing Homes to make friends with the infirmed and dying to offer them comfort ? What has atheism done to try to promote a more civil moral American Society ? What power does Atheism have and can offer a person so that Person can live an exemplary moral and selfless life ?

Finally, lets wrapup our chat by examining the actual formal affirmations found in the atheistic Humanist Manifestos to see how the general Atheist Community has played them out in American Society (taken from a CF formal debate I had recently) :

"Having established Secular Humanism as a Religion, Philosophy, and Worldview..., we can now consider a few constructs of Secular Humanism in light of the effect they have had on Society based on its thrust toward 'Man Being The Measure of all Things' and the fundamental psychology that what One firmly believes in, commits to, and follows has a direct bearing how that Person/Group behaves privately and publicly ":

1. Manifesto #1. Affirmations 1 and 2 . says all of reality comes about by the processes of natural evolution without a shred of intelligent input. RESPONSE: Secular Humanists are FORCED to believe despite any credible scientific evidence that our Universe having highly personal, intelligent, information effects came about by a non personal, non intelligent, unwilled, non informational original Source which led to accidental formation of galaxies and planets , accidental first life on earth, accidental graduation of a pond scum protozoa to human being via unwilled accidental materialism and naturalism thru blind random chances ,ad infinitum . This disturbing and illogical worldview was thoroughly dissected and shown for its irrationality and utter impossibility in this recent CF Formal Debate : http://www.christianforums.com/t7813978/ with nearly all of my followup questions highlighted in bold black letters going completely unanswered or hardly addressed because there aren't any cogent answers available . If a Person believes their existence is without ultimate meaning/purpose , that their dignity and worth is on the order of an insignificant amoeba , morality being optional and determined by the Individual, and they are here for nothing but survival and going on feeding frenzies of available pleasures ........ what are the logical widespread implications and ramifications of such a practiced religion to a Society that is all about SELF ? The chart in this site will help us see some of the implications of a daily practiced religion where morality is optional or undesirable : http://www.godandscience.org/evoluti...lications.html . What can we expect from a huge number of Citizens in any given Country that take such a view of morality ? Would we expect them to rule-bend , have disregard for laws to suit themselves, and do what was 'right' in their own eyes despite proven consequences to the action ? Such is the slippery slope of religions that elevate Oneself to Master thereby encouraging narcissism . Five unbiased independent scientific Studies considered how atheistic Secular Humanists themselves rated moral principles and how the general populace view the public behavior of this particular Group --- the results are found in this recent CF Debate clearly showing the disdain of making Man the Measure of all Things : http://www.christianforums.com/t7805623/ . And, I would appreciate Freodin not making Me out being villainous toward Atheists as I simply report the facts that have been determined by unbiased Studies of which I am not affiliated with ; I do not hate professed Atheists , and in fact have atheist acquaintences which I routinely get together with socially and usually enjoy their company so long as they remain controlled and considerate of God in their speech. Finally, here is what the Secular Humanist of the Year had to say on the implications of Evolutionary Principles and Morality ; Prof. Paul Kurtz from his book The Humanist Alternative, sums up the end result this way: “If man is a product of evolution, one species among others, in a universe without purpose, then man’s option is to live for himself”. Given the massive destructive fallout from Man making up his own rules, Kurtz certainly got it right .

The popular Atheist Voltaire said : "If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." So,.lets test Voltaires claim by going further with Secular Humanism on a sociological level ............

2. Manifesto #2. Affirmation 2. says : " Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful (to Individuals and Society ; rather, Science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces .Neither has science found evidence that life survives death. Humans should look after the welfare of this life, not the next) " . RESPONSE : This affirmation is completely fallacious because real Science based on reality shows the necessity of a personal intelligent Creator without a shred of chance that chance, accidents, time, and non intelligent Materials thru Naturalism could produce ANY SORT of a life form with its inherent biological information equivalent to 1,000 volumes of encyclopedias (DNA instructional information for the tiniest of amoebas ) . As for life after death, the historical evidence shows that the New Testament of the Bible is THE MOST accurate historical document of all ancient literary works and it attests to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ ... the same Jesus that claimed to be the One to give immortal salvation thru his personal atoning sacrifice and taught approx. 25% of the time on eternity apart from God in a conscious state (Hell) . The only 'fear' that comes into play are for those who don't want to take advantage of this free undeserved gift because Secular Humanism suits them better. For those who receive, love, and have made Jesus their King and Savior, the promise of 'God not giving us a spirit of fear but of power, love, and a sound mind' is the truth the Christian lives by. If Jesus Christ is 'illusory' , then we have to throw out every single ancient literary work because all of them have far far less historical evidence and eye witness testimony than the reporting New Testament. Lastly, besides the many eye witnesses to Christ surviving death from a physical resurrection and others He resurrected , in more modern times there has been many thousands of people who have been flatlined and pronounced dead yet they have come back to life in a fully restorative state . One such individual (Val Thomas) layed flatlined in a hospital for some 17 hours before coming back to life again. Others have slipped away and have been brought back only to report of such objects as a pair of gym shoes on a certain section of the roof. MANY firsthand accounts have been witnessed by Surgeons who did the ressusitations that have written reports and books on the experiences ; one such book is called To Hell and Back by Dr. Maurice Rawlings , an atheist Surgeon who became a CHristian as a result of these experiences recording Patients words at the moment they came back. As for concentrating on this life alone getting all the gusto One can accumulate in the allotted time left by snubbing God, this is the greatest mistake One could ever make. Jesus said : 'There is a way that seems right to a man, but it ends in destruction (severe regret)' . The way that seems right is for a Person to live making himself the center of the Universe and partaking in any pursuit he desires whether right or wrong (of course...everything is 'right' to such a deceived Person if he deems so) .

3. Manifesto #2. Affirmation 3. says : " We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction (Humanists base their values system on the here and now and values have no suprahuman basis or goal) " . RESPONSE : Therefore, doing what thou wilt is the whole of the law as Satanist Allister Crowley said . With no objective moral standards , there is no objective difference between a Mother Theresa and an Adolph Hitler, for, both truly believed they were doing the correct thing. This Humanist Affirmation is perhaps THE greatest detriment to any civil society because anything goes and nothing is objectively wrong to do concerning actions, talk, behavior, lifestyles, motives. Freethinkers (Secular Humanists) find this refreshingly liberating because afterall, its a life with no holes barred . This makes such things as walk in abortion on demand due to sexual hedonism backfiring , euthanasia, homosexuality , inappropriate behavior with animals, hookup sex , incest, rape, et al.... optional . Afterall, any of these could be seen as permissible in the Mind of a moral relativist.

4. Manifesto #2, Affirmation 4 says : "Reason and intelligence are the most effective instruments that humankind possesses (a combination of critical intelligence and human caring is the best hope for resolving human problems) " . RESPONSE : Very ironic that things like reason, logic, intelligence , love, caring, etc.... are championed when you cant get ANY of these things from an atheistic Materialistic Worldview . If Materialism is true, then reason itself is impossible. For if the mental processes are nothing but chemical reactions in the brain, then there is no reason to believe that anything is really true including Ones theory of materialism. Chemicals cant evaluate whether or not a theory is true. Chemicals don't reason, they react. Reason itself is impossible in a world governed only by chemical and physical forces . Further, the only reason why anyone would truly care about anothers wellbeing is because they feel a moral obligation / moral oughtness to do so ... but why feel this way when The Person is simply made up of accidental compilations of atoms ? Atoms don't care, atoms don't think, atoms don't reason , they don't consider whats logical or right, and compassion and caring cant come from accidental atoms and raw chemicals. This is just one more example of the seriously flawed religion of Secular Humanism ---- it isn't even justifiable let alone its constructs being sound.

5. Manifesto #2. Affirmation 5 says : " The preciousness and dignity of the Individual Person is a central humanist value (individual freedom of choice should be increased) " . RESPONSE : Weve already seen thru previous affirmations of this religion that Man was just a random cosmic accident living in a random accidental Cosmos ; an animal that graduated from the Forest just looking to fulfill his/her own needs and survivalbility . How do we get preciousness and dignity for a Human Being from a long line of accidental mutations that ultimately originated from pond slime ? Further, because our existence is accidental , we are just a random compilation of atoms including our Brain and thus our thoughts.....why should we place ANY kind of trust in the affirmation that the Individual has preciousness and dignity since this formulated idea came from the thoughts of an accidental Brain ? It makes no sense to appeal to ANY kind of positive description toward Something that was utterly accidental. Its just one more example of hypocrisy with this religion.

6. Manifesto #2. Affirmation 6 says : " In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct . The Authors affirm rights to birth control, abortion, divorce , and any form of sexual behavior between two consenting adults. Individuals should be allowed to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their lifestyles as desired" . RESPONSE : Sounds so wonderful that such freedom should be granted in the area of sexuality...afterall, why shouldnt Mankind treat their sexuality in an unrestrained limited manner since globally we are just a bunch of graduated Forest Animals (?) What a shame it has been for western countries in particular to embrace the mendacious teaching that our sexuality doesn't carry with it any sacredness, holiness, or moral duty to preserve it as a gift bestowed upon us from our Creator . Today , instead of treating our sexuality responsibly and practicing great self control to honor ourselves and others in accordance to Gods loving and protective mandates, we groom our Children in the ways of irresponsible Secular Humanism so Boys become Sexual Perannahs for ego inflation and Girls wanting to become Tramps by using their sexuality for power , control, attention, and to become popular with the opposite sex. As a result, our Crisis Pregnancy Centers across America are busting at the seams with children pregnant with children as are the Killing Mills cranking out some 4,000 murders of developing Human Beings because 'Mom' demands her Humanism liberty over life itself (so much for Affirmation #5 above with the hypocritical adage of 'preciousness and dignity for ALL HUMANS as a central value' ----- that would be ALL Humans except the scientifically confirmed Humans who are the most innocent and defenseless of us all while developing in the womb).
__________________
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Euler

Junior Member
Sep 6, 2014
1,163
20
40
✟9,028.00
Faith
Atheist
Both of these directly relate to Atheists . And they do show Theists in a better light. They are only 'bunk' to someone who the truth is being told about.

The truth is that religious organizations include the time and money donated to those organizations when calculating how much the religious donate.

If I was a member of an atheist group and I volunteered to set up the chairs and tables for each weekly meeting, would you classify that as 'charitable donation'? I wouldn't. But the religious do.

When you eliminate that self-serving effort, the charitable work of the religious and non- religious is on a par. Check the research.

There is a stark difference between what atheists and CHristians financially give AND the amount of time and energy they donate for humanitarian projects ;

See above.

can you name me just One atheist based Organization that assisted when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans ?

I presume you mean non-religious. How about the Red Cross? Chinese government? Cuba? Medecins sans Frontiers? International Medical Corps?

Can you name any atheist based Organizations that go into Nursing Homes to make friends with the infirmed and dying to offer them comfort ?

Red Cross.

What has atheism done to try to promote a more civil moral American Society ?

We tend not to be as prejudiced as the religious?

What power does Atheism have and can offer a person so that Person can live an exemplary moral and selfless life ?

Power? Have you forgotten what atheism is? It's the absence of something! How do you derive 'power' from an absence??
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

MoreCoffee

Repentance works.
Jan 8, 2011
29,850
2,841
Near the flying spaghetti monster
✟57,848.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
A lot of christians ask me how I can have morals without God, but quite honestly, it's just instinctual to be good. We wouldn't survive very long as a species if we were all killing each other off. Why do you, as christians, need a reward of heaven to do good? Isn't doing good in itself enough?

When doing good costs you something then it ought to be asked "why do good when it costs me to do it?" The answer is usually couched in some sort of reward derived from doing good. It is evident from your post that the reward received when you do good is some sort of internal pleasure at having done it. That is every bit as much a reward as belief in a heavenly reward. But here is something your post assumes that does not correspond to christian beliefs. Christians are not rewarded with heaven because they did good. The reward of heaven is a grace, a gift given without any discernible cause in the behaviour of the one who receives it. Specifically, christians receive heaven because God loves them. Not because they do good. One does good because God's love motivates one to do good; it is like seeing an excellent example set by another and attempting to emulate the other who set the excellent example thus doing good is more of a consequence of God's love than a cause for it and heaven is a gift that one receives not a reward for having done sufficient good to deserve it.

Have you read the new testament? It is instructive on the points I've attempted to explain above.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,747
964
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟246,725.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Why There Is No Such Thing as a Good Atheist
A worldview is your view of everything inside (and possibly outside) the universe: truth, religion, beauty, war, morality and Nickleback—everything. Everybody has one. While it is true that there is no definitive atheistic worldview, all atheists share the same fundamental beliefs as core to their personal worldviews. While some want to state atheism simply as a disbelief in the existence of a god, there really is more to it. Every expression of atheism necessitates at least 3 additional affirmations.

  1. The universe is purely material. It is strictly natural and there is no such thing as the supernatural, i.e. god or spiritual forces.
  2. The universe is knowable. It is observable, able to be understood and governed strictly by the laws of physics.
  3. The universe is impersonal. It does not a have consciousness nor will, neither is it guided by a consciousness or will.
Denial of any one of those 3 affirmations will strike a mortal blow to atheism. Anything and everything that happens in such a universe is meaningless. A tree falls. A young girl is rescued from sexual slavery. A dog barks. A man is killed for not espousing the national religion. These are all actions that can be known and explained, but never given any meaning or value.
A good atheist, that is a consistent atheist, recognizes this dilemma. His only reasonable conclusion is to reject objective meaning and morality. Thus, calling him good in the moral sense is nonsensical. There is no morally good atheist because there really is no objective morality. At best, morality is the mass delusion shared by humanity, protecting us from the cold sting of despair.
For those of you who think you’re about to light up this supposed straw man and raze me to the ground, consider the following:


Why There Is No Such Thing as a Good Atheist | Church Is Messy (and that's a good thing)
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,747
964
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟246,725.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The trouble with some of those surveys is they are bias. Religions give a lot more than secular society. Its in their DNA. They are taught it every day and their whole philosophy is about helping others. Its like going to school and making a career in helping people. The surveys show that religious people are only a little more generous when they factor out the giving that goes to their own church. This makes the stats look better for non religious giving. They seem to think that this is part of self serving so it doesn't count.

But if you look where that money goes when it supposedly goes to the church I think you will find a lot of it makes its way to programs and other charities it links up with. The salvation army are a good example. The Red shield appeal generates lots of money that goes to the Salvation army. So they dont count this in the stats. But where does the money go to that they collect. It goes their their many programs like the homeless shelters, drug and alcohol rehabs, counseling like the salvo care line, child abuse centers, domestic violence counseling and refuges for women and children. It goes to their overseas missionary work and other projects they collect for.

Sure a certain amount will go back to admin as they will have some paid staff. But this is minimal and most people will trust a religious organization with charity money more than anyone else as they normally will do the right thing and try to make most of that dollar go to the needy. They have more volunteers helping to make up the numbers compared to secular organizations as well because this is expected of them as part of their belief. The same with many others like the Smith family and St Vincents De Paul. But they dont count any of that because its classed as going back to the religion itself. Its obvious that religious organizations help a lot more and if it wasn't for them society would be in big trouble. The governments know this and they rely on them to clean up the mess that is left in society from the lack of social policy that the government has.

Non religious organizations also have some of their charity money go back into admin and other associated costs. So why aren't they taking those figures out of the stats. It seems they want to get as much advantage as possible. But I would have thought it stands to reason that religions do a lot more good work and volunteer more of their time and money because its part and parcel of what they have to do and want to do. Remember that secular society has no real obligation. Sure there are many people and organizations who do tremendous work in helping others and nothing should be taken away from this. But I get a bit tired of people trying to put down every single thing that religion does as though its no different. I say give credit where credits due. It seems some loath even doing that as they dont want to give one little inch to God or religion.

Anyway heres an atheists site who even will admit that religious people do have the edge on giving of time and money.
10 Things Christians Do Better than Atheists - #1 Charity Work - Minnesota Atheists ~ Positive Atheism in Action Since 1991

Heres a rational site which is non religious who seem to say something different about all those other surveys.
The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.
Are Religious People More Charitable than Non-Believers? | Mostly Rational
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
Steve, I think it would be a good idea to critically examine the validity of the arguments of an article before you spread it - even though you agree with its conclusions.

This article is an intellectual trainwreck.Uncritically posting it makes you look as stupid as the writer of the article.
The sheer amount of pure rhethorics, the habit of appealing to the invulnerability of the argument, the a priori exclusion of any possible counterargument already should make the reader suspicious.
The introduction:
"You clicked on this post for one of two reasons. You’re either hoping that I’m right or you know that I’m wrong. For those of you who are eager to pierce me with your whit and crush my pre-modern mind, allow me to issue a challenge. I contend that any response you make will only prove my case. Like encountering a hustler on the streets of Vegas, the deck is stacked and the odds are not in your favor."
is pure rhethorics without any nutritional value.
"For those of you who think you’re about to light up this supposed straw man and raze me to the ground"
Yeah, this guy knows exactly what´s wrong with his arguments.But lets ignore all the strawmen he´s putting up, for the moment (they are nothing new and have been pointed out on this forum countless times). If you wish, we can do that later.

The most fundamental flaw is the following non-sequitur:
Even if we accept for the sake of the argument that an atheist had no grounds for appealing to an objective morality (A good atheist, that is a consistent atheist, recognizes this dilemma. His only reasonable conclusion is to reject objective meaning and morality.) , this doesn´t mean he can´t be good. It would be like saying "A person who doesn´t believe in evolution isn´t a human being.". Or like saying "A person who doesn´t believe in gravity can´t fall."

"A good atheist, that is a consistent atheist, recognizes this dilemma. His only reasonable conclusion is to reject objective meaning and morality. Thus, calling him good in the moral sense is nonsensical. There is no morally good atheist because there really is no objective morality." (emphasis added)

What? The existence of an objective morality would not depend on who and how many people believe there is. Not believing in it wouldn´t make it go away, would it?
If there were an objective moral standard, there is no reason to assume (or at least Henderson hasn´t mentioned such a reason) to assume that a person who doesn´t believe in this standard can´t meet it, nonetheless.





Why There Is No Such Thing as a Good Atheist
A worldview is your view of everything inside (and possibly outside) the universe: truth, religion, beauty, war, morality and Nickleback—everything. Everybody has one. While it is true that there is no definitive atheistic worldview, all atheists share the same fundamental beliefs as core to their personal worldviews. While some want to state atheism simply as a disbelief in the existence of a god, there really is more to it. Every expression of atheism necessitates at least 3 additional affirmations.

  1. The universe is purely material. It is strictly natural and there is no such thing as the supernatural, i.e. god or spiritual forces.
  2. The universe is knowable. It is observable, able to be understood and governed strictly by the laws of physics.
  3. The universe is impersonal. It does not a have consciousness nor will, neither is it guided by a consciousness or will.
Denial of any one of those 3 affirmations will strike a mortal blow to atheism. Anything and everything that happens in such a universe is meaningless. A tree falls. A young girl is rescued from sexual slavery. A dog barks. A man is killed for not espousing the national religion. These are all actions that can be known and explained, but never given any meaning or value.
A good atheist, that is a consistent atheist, recognizes this dilemma. His only reasonable conclusion is to reject objective meaning and morality. Thus, calling him good in the moral sense is nonsensical. There is no morally good atheist because there really is no objective morality. At best, morality is the mass delusion shared by humanity, protecting us from the cold sting of despair.
For those of you who think you’re about to light up this supposed straw man and raze me to the ground, consider the following:


Why There Is No Such Thing as a Good Atheist | Church Is Messy (and that's a good thing)
 
Upvote 0

Euler

Junior Member
Sep 6, 2014
1,163
20
40
✟9,028.00
Faith
Atheist
Again, for those who are interested, the numbers are quite clear.

When the time and money that religious people donate to the organizations they belong to is subtracted, there is little difference in the charitable habits of both the religious and non-religious.

Additionally, of the money that is donated to churches, very, very little actually makes its way out of the church and into charitable works. The vast majority is retained by the church for its purposes.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
Now for some other fallacious parts of the article:

While it is true that there is no definitive atheistic worldview, all atheists share the same fundamental beliefs as core to their personal worldviews.
All they share is a lack of belief in Gods. This is - from the atheistic pov - not (necessarily) fundamental or a core of their worldview. Actually, to me the things that I don´t believe in are completely insignficant for the formation of my world view.
While some want to state atheism simply as a disbelief in the existence of a god, there really is more to it. Every expression of atheism necessitates at least 3 additional affirmations:
The universe is purely material. It is strictly natural and there is no such thing as the supernatural, i.e. god or spiritual forces.
Doesn´t follow from "I don´t believe that a God exists.".
The universe is knowable. It is observable, able to be understood and governed strictly by the laws of physics.
Doesn´t follow, either.
The universe is impersonal.
It does not a have consciousness nor will, neither is it guided by a consciousness or will.
Nor does this.
Denial of any one of those 3 affirmations will strike a mortal blow to atheism.
I could believe that the world is not purely material, I could believe that the universe is not knowable, and I could believe that the universe has consciousness - and still not believe that a God exists.
So, no. Doesn´t follow, either.
A tree falls. A young girl is rescued from sexual slavery. A dog barks. A man is killed for not espousing the national religion. These are all actions that can be known and explained, but never given any meaning or value.
Last time I checked I could give them meaning and value. Just not a God-given meaning and value.

What is it with those theists who are so eager to tell me what I believe?
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,747
964
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟246,725.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
One of the other things we have to take into consideration is not only dont they count the money raised by organizations like the salvation army but they also give a large proportion of money from what they actually make with their many charity shops. You have to ask what a religious organization does in the first place. To discount the money they get that goes to their church is ridiculous. When most of that money then goes back into programs to and charity to help the needy. The whole idea of a church is a beacon in society where the needy go to. They can get a meal, or food hamper, a bed or some counseling. Just about every church has counseling services and food for the needy. So they are like medical clinics in the community except they will help people with emotional and mental problems as well. The Government saves a lot of money with the charities doing a lot of their dirty work.

Heres what some of that money that they dont count in the surveys goes to from the donations that the Salvation army collect in their name under fund raises like the Red Shield appeal.

In a typical week, across Australia, we provide (approximate figures):

  • 100,000 meals for the hungry
  • 2,000 beds for the homeless
  • 5,000 to 8,000 food vouchers
  • 1,000 people with assistance in finding employment
  • Refuge to 500 victims of abuse
  • Assistance to 500 people addicted to drugs, alcohol or gambling
  • Several thousand people with counseling
  • 3,000 elderly people with aged care services
  • 40 people in the court system with chaplaincy services
  • Family tracing services which locate 40 missing family members
The other thing is their admin costs a very low so most of every dollar goes to the needy. It works out at around 15 cents for every dollar which would have to be one of the best value for money returns of any charity around.

This Is just the Salvation army. There are many others who do similar. Just because they get donations doesn't mean its not going to help people and not themselves.

Here are some more surveys that dispute the one cited. Some of the stats for religious charity far outweigh non religious charity. Even like for like when donating time to non religious events religious people donate their time more. Is it so hard to give credit where credits due. Gee I mean is their anything good that we do because it seems that just about everything I see mentioned people are criticizing religion as though it doesn't do any good at all. It seems as apposed to this one survey whose figures are showing one view there are many reputable ones that are showing the opposite. I detect some bias here.

A comprehensive study by Harvard University professor Robert Putnam found that religious people are more charitable than their irreligious counterparts.[2][3] The study revealed that forty percent of worship service attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly as opposed to 15% of Americans who never attend services.[4][5] Moreover, religious individuals are more likely than non-religious individuals to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%).
http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_charity

Christian charitable organizations rank highest in terms of using donor money toward charitable projects and services, according to a recent Forbes study.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/c...liable-than-others-according-to-forbes-64522/
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,747
964
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟246,725.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Well according to this article there may not even be atheists.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7216/pdf/4551038a.pdf
This line of thought has led to some scientists claiming that "atheism is psychologically impossible because of the way humans think," says Graham Lawton, an avowed atheist himself, writing in the New Scientist. "They point to studies showing, for example, that even people who claim to be committed atheists tacitly hold religious beliefs, such as the existence of an immortal soul."
This shouldn't come as a surprise, since we are born believers, not atheists, scientists say. Humans are pattern-seekers from birth, with a belief in karma, or cosmic justice, as our default setting. "A slew of cognitive traits predisposes us to faith," writes Pascal Boyer in Nature, the science journal, adding that people "are only aware of some of their religious ideas".
Evolutionary Studies Suggest that Atheists, Whatever They Say to the Contrary, Really Do Believe in God - Evolution News & Views
 
Upvote 0