Ask an atheist

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ask an atheist:
1. How do you decide how much charity to give and where to give it? 2. Do you think that charity giving is noble? 3. Should morality which encourages it be developed? 4. What're some of the things which prevent charity giving? 5. Is it okay that it's 'easier' (emotionally) to give to charity close-to-home than far away? 6. Do you think that if you were a believer in a religious faith, you'd give more to charity or 'be nicer'?

1. I picked 2 a long time ago. Cancer Treatment and IFAW. Cancer fairly obvious, and the animal one because I'm a sucker for puppy eyes, and they often need us. Not a rational decision, neither is the amount. Just what I was comfortable with. 2. Ha! No comment. 3. Yes. How? Don't know. 4. Hassle, pre-occupation with other less important things. 5. Is it ok? In what sense? Morally? It's just in our genes I guess to look after our own. In a perfect world though there would be no difference. 6. No.

 

[Maniacal]

Ask an atheist:
1. How do you decide how much charity to give and where to give it? 2. Do you think that charity giving is noble? 3. Should morality which encourages it be developed? 4. What're some of the things which prevent charity giving? 5. Is it okay that it's 'easier' (emotionally) to give to charity close-to-home than far away? 6. Do you think that if you were a believer in a religious faith, you'd give more to charity or 'be nicer'?

1. Depends, I don't have a lot of money to donate but when I do I usually donate a decent amount (most notably to Desert Bus for Hope for Child's Play and to the Red Cross in Japan via Valve's offer of hats for TF2 with the money going straight to the Red Cross in Japan).

I will only donate to a charity that I have researched and ensured is going to spend the money wisely and not have it disappear, get spent on excessive bureaucracy, corrupt officials, or "aid" that is completely and utterly useless to the people they are supposed to be helping. As this excludes many religious (mostly christian, there aren't many Jewish or Islamic charities here) charities from receiving my money. The worst offenders are those who send books instead of actual aid supplies.

2. Yes I do believe charity is a noble cause.

3. Sure, although I don't know how. I was raised to believe charity is a good thing, somehow mostly through cultural influences and TV I think.

4. Lack of money, apathy, trustworthiness and integrity of the charitable organization, etc.

5. There is no difference between the two except through how much of it you see and experience. Today it is a lot easier to see the devastation in other countries thanks to the internet and mass media.

6. I'd probably make poor choices as to which groups I donate too. I don't know if I'd donate more or less. Most christians seem to ignore Matthew 19:21 anyway.

 

[Smellincoffee]

Ask an atheist:
How do you decide how much charity to give and where to give it? Do you think that charity giving is noble? Should morality which encourages it be developed? What're some of the things which prevent charity giving? Is it okay that it's 'easier' (emotionally) to give to charity close-to-home than far away? Do you think that if you were a believer in a religious faith, you'd give more to charity or 'be nicer'?

1. I donate to Doctors without Borders because they provide actual medical service to people in need, all around the globe. I donate to a local food bank because again, it's an actual service. I know the money will be put to good use.

2 & 3. I don't think giving money makes someone noble, but it is a good thing to do. We are social creatures, and helping each other out strengthens the ties between us. Empathy is essential to a healthy life, I have found. I believe parents would do right by their children in giving them empathy-based morality. Cultivate a child's empathy and and ordinary decency will follow.

4. I would not give to a charity with religious overtones. I do not want my money being used to spread ideas which are from my perspective (1) incorrect and (2) morally contemptible. While organizations like the Red Cross may provide a service, I can give to Doctors without Borders or another regular charity and be sure that the money is never connected to religion or political ideology in any way.

I prefer charities who are clear about how my money will be used.

5. This is unfortunately natural, I think. We tend to empathize more easily with our neighbors than strangers. I've held an internationalist perspective for most of my life, though, and regard the human race as a whole as my kin.

6. Depending on the religion, I might give more, but this would not mean I was better for it. My parents committ 30% of their income to their church, and that money does nothing. Their church has no charities, does nothing to help the community. They give their money and feel good about themselves, but all they do is enrich a lunatic preacher who wields cultlike power over his congregants.

While religion is associated with morality in the present day, and may be a useful, organized way of enforcing codes of behavior, those codes of behavior are not necessarily good. The church I was raised in (Pentecostalism) was very homophobic. I believe this kind of intolerance, no matter how it is justified, to be abhorrent.

I always lived by my personal code, but I was not free to really develop it until I had revolted against religion. I have found natural human sources (reason and empathy) to be more useful for morality than dogma and tradition.

 

[LucyDuke]

Ask an atheist:
How do you decide how much charity to give and where to give it? Do you think that charity giving is noble? Should morality which encourages it be developed? What're some of the things which prevent charity giving? Is it okay that it's 'easier' (emotionally) to give to charity close-to-home than far away? Do you think that if you were a believer in a religious faith, you'd give more to charity or 'be nicer'?

I'm not able to give charity right now. I'm not really sure how I would determine how much to give aside from whatever "spare" I had at the time of consideration. I want to get the most bang for the buck, and I want to address the worst problems we have. Cancer is bad, illiteracy is bad, starving children is bad... womens' rights in the third world, in sub-Saharan Africa, probably bothers me the most. I would like to support whatever the most effective effort against the abuse of women in war zones is.

It's certainly noble, and it should be encouraged. I think the bystander effect is the biggest impediment. I don't think there's much wrong with it being easier to help people closer to you, though we ought to make efforts to go beyond our neighbors.

I think if I were religious I might be more inclined to give to far-away folks that shared my religion, because we had that in common. I don't think much else would be different, unless I had some kind of religious conviction to meet a certain quota. I doubt I would "be nicer".

 

[mangxema]

How do you decide how much charity to give and where to give it?

Well, admittedly I don't really give much. I basically started with nothing except student debts about two years ago, so really I'm getting my own house in order first. Being new to the 'actually having some money' game, I tend to stick with the big ones for disaster relief and stuff.

Do you think that charity giving is noble? Should morality which encourages it be developed?

It depends on the charity. It really depends on where the money goes.

What're some of the things which prevent charity giving?

Obviously you have to enjoy giving. Most people don't. Never really having money growing up--and really not having that much now--I'm kind of a cheap bastard, which would obviously get in the way.

Is it okay that it's 'easier' (emotionally) to give to charity close-to-home than far away?

I think so. Everyone would like to see that their money/time/whatever is used wisely, and that's obviously easier to check on when you can directly see where the money is going. The biggest contribution I've made is several thousand in the form of a 'loan' to my parents. Some may not say that that really counts, but given the circumstances and the fact that I'd be extremely surprised if he was ever able to pay it back (and barring extreme fortune, I'd probably refuse it anyway) I mentally put it in the same category. I know what giving it means, concretely, and I know what not giving it means, concretely, and you just can't get that with a national charity.

Do you think that if you were a believer in a religious faith, you'd give more to charity or 'be nicer'?

Absolutely not. In fact, to an extent I think the opposite is true. It really bothers me that people die knowing nothing but misery. I suppose a religious person could say, 'Well, they'll get theirs in heaven.' But that doesn't work for me. If good is going to be done, people are going to have to do it.

 

[emzie]

Ask an atheist:
How do you decide how much charity to give and where to give it? Do you think that charity giving is noble? Should morality which encourages it be developed? What're some of the things which prevent charity giving? Is it okay that it's 'easier' (emotionally) to give to charity close-to-home than far away? Do you think that if you were a believer in a religious faith, you'd give more to charity or 'be nicer'?

Bit presumptions to open with the assumption I'm donating to charity in the first place, no? While I'm very supportive of upping government-funded programs to the UN's target of .7% GDP, I'm not too big on donating money myself, being tucked away in a little apartment in Canada. There's too much disconnect in my mind between me, sitting here, and a child starving in Africa.

I do donate though. After seeing a Christian Children's Fund commercial when I was 19, I became a sponsor (after confirming that there's no evangelizing of the children). I get little hand-written cards that more or less guilt me into never stopping this sponsorship. Well played, CCF.

When my wife's dad's estate cleared, we gave a rather sizeable one-time donation, through her mother and stepfather, to a charity in Africa that dug wells. Our donation covered the cost of the well, but the charity required the villagers to pay a nominal fee for well upkeep, so that the well felt "owned" by the villagers.

I've never been particularly religious, so I'm not sure if my giving is tied into faith in anyway.

 

[LucyDuke]

That reminds me of something sort of tangential... I will never give to the CCF or the ASPCA, despite my very strong agreement with the ASPCA's mission. They air advertisements that can only be described as guilt porn. These advertisements offend and upset me and I feel like any support would only encourage that.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Ask an atheist:
How do you decide how much charity to give and where to give it? Do you think that charity giving is noble? Should morality which encourages it be developed? What're some of the things which prevent charity giving? Is it okay that it's 'easier' (emotionally) to give to charity close-to-home than far away? Do you think that if you were a believer in a religious faith, you'd give more to charity or 'be nicer'?

1. I struggle to make minimum wage because I work for tips. I struggle to pay my bills, and I have debt. When this was not the case, I gave to individuals I saw in distress:

A mother whose car broke down and needed it repaired so she could keep working to feed her family.
A person whose niece needed an operation.
A person who was begging for change, who said he needed food, I took inside the 7-11 and told him he could select any food and drink in the store and I'd pay for it. Predictably, he didn't want anything.

I never had a whole lot of money, so I gave rarely, but I still gave what I could afford.

2. Charitable giving comes from a noble place. It depends on what the cause is and what the money is really spent on. Charity is wide open for scams, and big charities are a business.

3. It is one of those things we know is morally right with or without religion, because it's logical and common sense.

4. Bad economic downturns and selfishness.

5. I prefer to see exactly where my money goes, and if it has helped. That is why I go local.

6. I had been once, and no, my charity habits have never changed.

 

[SG-17]

I don't donate to any charity and won't. I'm fine with governments lending aid where it needs to go and for governments to generously fund social programs but I have never felt the need to donate to any charity.

 

[MikeL49NYVI]

Ajidica;10478780]If God is the source of everything, including love, how could Lucifer 'create' evil, which at its core is simply a variation of love?

I am not sure why you say that evil is a variation of love? The only place I can recall hearing something like that was from a group that claimed that Jeus and Satan would reunite, and co-exist as rules of the universe in heaven, at some future time. I'm not claliming that of you, just making a reference.
For a direct answer, I do not know. There are parts of God that I do not understand, there are spiritual laws in the universe that I do not know about, and can only guess at. In some ways I do believe there is some sort of 5th dimension. And so, in some sort of way, Lucifier was able to concieve of evil by himself.
I should have mentioned that it originally took the form of rebellion against God. In fact I should probably name it not as evil, but rebellion. Lucifier (Satan) wanted to be the head man.

Why does a sacrifice, as you put it, have to be given for us to regain communion with God? If we look at Milton's Paradise Lost, Adam ate from the Tree of Knowledge so he could remain with Eve because he loved her. Adam willingly sacrificed his ability to remain in Eden for love. Given that Adam (and by extention, mankind) has sacrificed their own Eden why does any additional sacrifice need to occur? Could the message to regain communion with God simply be 'be an upstanding and moral person'?

This is partly answered above. There are certain laws in God's creation. Some of them are physical, some are spiritual. The physical ones are generally covered in the sciences. The spiritual ones are coverend in the Bible. (at least that is how I see it)
Somehow, for some reason, God requires the shedding of blood for the remission of sin. We are talking man's sin, which means man's intentional seperating himself from God. Now the original manisfestation of that disobedience was spiritual, not physical.

And, for all the feminists out there: Milton has the story wrong. I don't know why he wrote like that, but it is not what is in the Genesis account. Adam did not willingly sacrifice himself for Eve.In fact when encountered by God, in a fit of cowardice, and what looks like panic, exclaimed: "The woman that You gave to me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate."
Classic denial, which sounds suspiciously like many politicians.
I digress.....

Oh, and it was not from the tree of knowledege, but the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, (which seems to hint at something with Lucifier). But that is a common misunderstanding.

From that point on, the Bible becomes one big long complete narrative of God reaching out to man to bring him back. I can go into the entire Passover, sacrificial lamb, Easter, fulfilled prophecy, and Jesus as the "Lamb of God" if needed. And if you want the references and plan I can easily write them down. It is in fact a fasinating story, that shows how God took the time to set it all up, and prepare the Jewish nation to be the one in which the Messiah would come.

I'm curious, does your personal act of faith need to be in accordance with Christian ideology?

Why must we make a promise with Jesus rather then simply making a promise with God?
Furthermore, it is my understanding of Christian theological history that Jesus isn't God, especialy if we take the Nestorian or Arian viewpoint.

Quick answer: If God allows any other way to redempition other than what He provided with His son, then He negates everything His Son did, and turns His back on Jesus and the Bible.

Detailed Answer:
These are tightly related. And actually related to what I wrote above. According to the Bible, God sets up this intricate plan to achieve man's redemption, according to the spiritual laws that are in the universe.
He sends His son, Jesus, to be the perfect completion of His plan. Jesus allows Himself to be killed, by man, and fufills not only the terms of the payment for sin, but also all the prophecies that were written over 400 years before that.
That is the Christian view of the plan of salvation, and it is Christian ideology itself to accept and believe this to be true. If Christians accepted a different ideology, then it would not be Christian, it would be something else.

The entire Christian religion is dependent upon one man, and one act of history: Jesus being the Son of God in human form, and His rising from the dead. Take away either of those things, and Christianity begins to fall apart, piece by piece, and rather quickly. The Bible is very plain about Jesus being God. And Jesus claimed it for Himself.
Many different writers, religious leaders, philosphers, etc, etc have tried to disclaim Him and His ressurection so they can disclaim Christianity. I suspect that some of them wanted to be the one to go down in history as "The man who destroyed the Church" or something like that. Some are trying to push their own agenda, or start their own religion, so they can be powerful. Some like to show everyone how intelligent they are, and use lofty words to impress everyone. Some do not want to follow a certain part of the Bible, or it's teachings, for their own personal gain or to not have to face up to themselves. And some are just honestly asking heart-felt questions that they want the answer to.

Take this into account: If you accept Jesus as God, then you must at least consider His teachings, because being God, He would be speaking the truth. And that forces everyone to make their own choice about following those teachings or not. And if you accept the ressurection, then it follows that Jesus and the Bible are true, and the Bible is then a blue print for living our lives, and demands to be considered.

Many, many people do not want to have to face that.

 

[Fr8monkey]

Take this into account: If you accept Jesus as God, then you must at least consider His teachings, because being God, He would be speaking the truth. And that forces everyone to make their own choice about following those teachings or not. And if you accept the ressurection, then it follows that Jesus and the Bible are true, and the Bible is then a blue print for living our lives, and demands to be considered.

Many, many people do not want to have to face that.

Who 'demands' it? You do, that is who.

This is why I cant be a follower of any religion.... the judgmental part. It is not a matter of facing any fact, it is Christians say; "Believe as I do or suffer!". I don't know for a fact who is right.

How do you know that you are right and all the others are wrong? At the judgement, what if you find out that the Greek or Egyptian pantheon was correct the whole tome? Zeus and Ra were around a lot longer than Jesus was.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

I 'faced' it for ten years. I've found secular Enlightenment teachings to be morally superior to that of any religion.

 

[Ajidica]

I am not sure why you say that evil is a variation of love?

Sure. Evil, in the sense we are using it with Lucifer, is love of self(or material) over love of God. Look at Paradise Lost, Lucifer so valued and loved his free will he would not allow God to take that back. In A Canticle For Leibowitz, the 'biblical' account of Armageddon (the book takes place in a monastary) clearly mentions that the princes of the world hardened their heart against the lord, loving their possessions more then the lord and thus the nuclear holocaust began. We can find this repeated across many themes. Love is not always a good thing. Where love is directed can make it good or bad.

The only place I can recall hearing something like that was from a group that claimed that Jeus and Satan would reunite, and co-exist as rules of the universe in heaven, at some future time. I'm not claliming that of you, just making a reference.

My beliefs are many things, but not that.

For a direct answer, I do not know. There are parts of God that I do not understand, there are spiritual laws in the universe that I do not know about, and can only guess at. In some ways I do believe there is some sort of 5th dimension. And so, in some sort of way, Lucifier was able to concieve of evil by himself.

Not to get pedantic, but wouldn't Lucifer being able to concieve of Evil(or as you say later, rebellion) by himself mean that because there is evil in our world, God has no power over it? After all, God didn't vanquish Lucifer. You could the the Jewish approach toward Lucifer, but I'm not sure if that is what you want.

I should have mentioned that it originally took the form of rebellion against God. In fact I should probably name it not as evil, but rebellion. Lucifier (Satan) wanted to be the head man.

I'm curious, since Lucifer initiated the first rebellion against God's wishes, does that mean that here on Earth anyone who 'rebels' against what is considered to be the 'word of God' is Evil?

This is partly answered above. There are certain laws in God's creation. Some of them are physical, some are spiritual. The physical ones are generally covered in the sciences. The spiritual ones are coverend in the Bible. (at least that is how I see it)

New or Old Testament in the Bible? There are some definite contradictions between them.

Somehow, for some reason, God requires the shedding of blood for the remission of sin. We are talking man's sin, which means man's intentional seperating himself from God.

Did I intentional separate myself from God? Adam/Eve separated themselves from God. I don't recall the exact passage, but I seem to recall that Jesus said that the son is not responsible for the sins of the father.

Now the original manisfestation of that disobedience was spiritual, not physical.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Jesus is still up there with God because he ascended from the dead. So although Jesus had a physical death, he did not die a spiritual death. However, you state that our rebellion derives from a spiritual disobediance. Why then does a phyisical sacrifice 'negate' the eternal separation as a result of our spiritual disobediance?

Oh, and it was not from the tree of knowledege, but the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, (which seems to hint at something with Lucifier). But that is a common misunderstanding.

So God did not trust mankind, who were made in his image, with knowing the truth about good and evil? Seems to reflect poorly on God if the creation made in his image in unable to make the right choices after being exposed to both sides of something.

From that point on, the Bible becomes one big long complete narrative of God reaching out to man to bring him back. I can go into the entire Passover, sacrificial lamb, Easter, fulfilled prophecy, and Jesus as the "Lamb of God" if needed. And if you want the references and plan I can easily write them down. It is in fact a fasinating story, that shows how God took the time to set it all up, and prepare the Jewish nation to be the one in which the Messiah would come.

You would agree that the authors of the Gospel and the various letters (some of the books were not written by who the bible says it was by and so on. I don't know enough about biblical history to debate it in depth, but to understand my perspective I would highly reccomend you read Plotinus's posts about the history of the biblical books.) were written by people who were familiar with the Torah and the accompanying Hebrew writings, correct? Place yourself in their shoes: If you were writing about how awsome this one person in regards to faith and that he held the answer to ultimate truth and enlightenment, would you not take steps to paint them as a messiah and make allusions to the things a messiah would do?
Furthermore, when you look at the Jewish requirements for a Messiah, you will see Christ does not meet all of them. In fact, he doesn't meet most of them.

Quick answer: If God allows any other way to redempition other than what He provided with His son, then He negates everything His Son did, and turns His back on Jesus and the Bible.

If God, all-merciful and all-loving, let us condemn our eternal souls for raising valid objects about the consistancy of his statements and the book they are contained in? If you look at the posts in this thread, you will find most people became athiests, or at least agnostic, because the Bible did not contain all of the answers they were looking for.

Detailed Answer:
These are tightly related. And actually related to what I wrote above. According to the Bible, God sets up this intricate plan to achieve man's redemption, according to the spiritual laws that are in the universe.
He sends His son, Jesus, to be the perfect completion of His plan. Jesus allows Himself to be killed, by man, and fufills not only the terms of the payment for sin, but also all the prophecies that were written over 400 years before that.

Are you talking about the physical Jesus being killed or Jesus as the 'Son of God'.

The Bible is very plain about Jesus being God. And Jesus claimed it for Himself.

I'll have to check on this, but it is my understanding that Jesus never explicity said he was the Son of God. Jesus may have said he was the son (note lowercase) but that was a common expression back then.

 

[GamezRule]

I was raised to be fundamentalist/evangelical, and when things started to sound dumber and dumber, combined with arguments here, and just the fact that it contradicted anything making any form of sense, I became an atheist/agnostic. I am not really sure on the difference between the two.

Also, you can be fundamentalist without being evangelical, but not vice versa.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I became an atheist/agnostic. I am not really sure on the difference between the two.

There is overlap, but there is a difference. Agnosticism is admitting you do not know if there is a God or not. Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity.

(I know this was specifically addressed to atheists, but since this was simply a question of facts, I figured it did not matter.)

Also, you can be fundamentalist without being evangelical, but not vice versa.

Depends on how you define each of those terms. By my definitions, Fundamentalism is more extreme, while Evangelicism is like what I believe, but I'm not sure. In any case, I think this was a poor question for the Ask an Atheist thread of all threads, it would fit better in Ask a Protestant, even though I don't know the answer

 

[Brian Shanahan]

His point is that theists are trying to convince people of a belief system that includes their access to paradise, while atheists are trying to convince people of a belief system that deprives them of this kind of happy ending.

His point is that atheists should not be allowed to talk about their position regarding religion. For someone who professes belief in Freedom of Speech this is pretty far from the pale. But then Dommy thinks Free Speech only goes as far as those who agree with him on a topic. Those who disagree are obviously incapable of excercising Free Speech.

 

[GhostWriter16]

His point is that atheists should not be allowed to talk about their position regarding religion. For someone who professes belief in Freedom of Speech this is pretty far from the pale. But then Dommy thinks Free Speech only goes as far as those who agree with him on a topic. Those who disagree are obviously incapable of excercising Free Speech.

This is totally misrepresenting. I said that Atheist proselyting doesn't make sense. I did NOT say it should be prohibited. Actually read my posts next time.

 

[Ajidica]

Athiest proseltyzing makes as much sense as fundies doing it.

 

[GhostWriter16]

No, "Fundies" think it will actually gain the person something, or spare them of some punishment, or something. Atheist proselyting only tears families and people apart.

Whiskey Lord's conversion may enlighten you...

 

[Smellincoffee]

This is totally misrepresenting. I said that Atheist proselyting doesn't make sense. I did NOT say it should be prohibited. Actually read my posts next time.

I would agree. Promote freethought, and belief in deities and ghosts will die on its own.