So you don't believe in God or Christ...

Post Reply New Topic

What about helping the poor through charity? Governments do so much of it rather than churches these days because so many people have stopped donating to them. So, government has no choice but to provide what the churches cannot and a lot of people complain because of debt.

What do atheists propose to do about it? Just let the government fill in where the churches no longer can since there are so many non believers, way more than before?

Many, not everyone, but many atheists are also advocating social-darwinism. Maybe not to the extend of killing off the weak, but to simply let them starve to death.

Many religious people have that kind of attitude as well, though.
They claim the Bible says so:

"He who cannot work, shall not eat".
2. Thessalonians 3:10

The Bible does NOT promote indifference to suffering. Christ wants the well to do to take care of the wretched and those able to heal the sick.
I don't care what the Apostles say in their letters. Focus on what we know of Christ the man. I don't give any heed to various letters Apostles wrote even though I do like some of what St Paul has to offer the audience.

The Soviet Union was atheist. It clearly stated that anyone who does not work, shall not eat, according to their constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_doe ... all_he_eat

In regards to Jesus, I believe he wanted to take care of the weak. He was executed for just that.

Since ancient times, people have been angry at the sick and disabled. They have tried to either kill them off, or starve them to death.
Jesus' judicial process was no exeption. He was crucified for believing in a Welfare Society in Peace and Prosperity.

I disagree with your sweeping statement there. Just because a Communist government made an edict about needing to work to eat does not represent (in the least) the opinion of atheists in general. Just because we don't believe in sky fairies doesn't make us monsters!

As an atheist - or more accurately as a compassionate human being who doesn't believe in any gods, I have donated money to various organisations, charities and disaster relief agencies over the years.

I think that whether people are generous towards the poor and needy has nothing to do with whether they are Christians, other religion or atheists and has everything to do with the attitude of the individuals concerned. I'm sure there are a mixture of people who go to churches ranging from the miserly to those to donate money or help the poor. Similarly you'll find the same range of attitudes amongst atheists. You will likely find a complete range of religious beliefs through to atheism amongst doctors who work to provide medical care for the poor in their own countries and abroad. Similarly with soup kitchens and the like. Where you likely won't find many/any atheists is amongst religious organisations that help the poor while simultaneously trying to cynically indoctrinate them (e.g. homeless must say prayers before they are allowed to eat in a shelter).

Yes. That, and encouraging secular charities to do the work.

Churches are not the main providers of food charity. Only 2 of the top 10 food charities are religious. The other 8 have no religious affiliation. This does not mean they are staffed only by athiests. It means that religious affiliation is increasingly irrelevent to food charity.

http://gourmetfood.about.com/od/televis ... Hunger.htm

Note that the #1 food charity in the U.S. is not religious.



I have donated to Feeding America because I think they are a fine secular food charity. Here's where "faith" appears in their mission statement.


Here's where "belief" appears in their mission statement.


Churches don't have a monopoly on pro-social behaviour.

Churches used to do a large portion of charity work, Janissy, and the government had a lot less debt then.

And as far as donating to non religious charities, why would you if you don't believe in God? You might on a whim but you wouldn't give as much without thinking it was for your soul's salvation.

When I've given to non-religious charities any thoughts about gods or the lack of gods never entered into it. Like when the massive tsunami hit Indonesia, I picked up the phone and made a donation to help combat the human suffering there. Compassion is a human trait, not something owned by Christians. If a Christian makes a donation to save their own soul then that says more about their manipulative and cynical behaviour than anything.

It might be a psychological event in the mind of believers, this belief they need to do good works to earn salvation...however the outcome is desirable to all people. It might mean less government debt which many people demand happen. So what if the person responsible for creating less debt does it because of a psychological manipulation. Isn't the important thing that they are donating enough money to keep the government from accruing so much debt?

Churches are on the wane so it is impossible for them to provide as much charity as they once did.

And if you truly believe your soul's salvation depends on it, you will give and do more. It's just human nature.

True, everyone has compassion but they don't always act on it alone.

Government debt is not neccessarily a bad thing. The Dutch government has a debt in the area of 300 billion euro. At super low interest too. That is 300 billion invested in the Dutch economy that we otherwise wouldn't have. It also provides a fairly safe investment opportunity for pension funds. The alternative would be to tax people even more.
Some time ago the German goverment was borrowing money at 0% interest. That is like stealing candy from a toddler.

Last edited by trollcatman on 14 Jul 2014, 9:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

You actually need to balance that debt some and spend the money from the debt on stuff that gets you a return otherwise your country will sink. It's just like with a credit card. If you used credit to go out to eat at fancy restaurants several times a week without the money to pay it back quickly, you will find yourself sinking in debt, eventually, without anything to show for it. If you used your credit card to invest in something that would make money, you would get a return on your debt.

Most people use credit cards for instant gratification and this seldom gets them anywhere.

I agree that the money should be invested wisely, which is not always the case. But this is absolutely the worst time to cut government spending because that will hurt spending power in the local economies. This is a time when interest is so low and the economy is suffering, why not take advantage of that? Also, in many countries the government bonds are bought mostly by their own citizens. They invest in their own government not because interest is high, but because they believe it is a safe investment. Many people unknowlingly invest in gov bonds through pension funds. Now people are crying for zero debt at a time when interest on bonds is next to nothing. Where were they when interest was high? If borrowing at near 0% interest can improve the economy, I'm all for it.

Churches did used to do a large portion of of charity work. They also used to do the majority of healthcare (some hospitals still maintain their religious ties). But both those things have become increasingly secularized as western society has become increasingly secularized. High government debt is unrelated. It isn't the lack of church (or secular) charity that has increased the U.S. debt.



What I give has nothing to do with my soul. It is in part compassion and in part the desire to live in a world with reduced suffering and increased positivity. I am not trying to buy my way into heaven because I don't believe in such a thing. In a way I am trying to buy my way into a world that is good in the here and now.

However I am under no illusion that charitable giving, whether religious or secular, can make any dent in the national debt.

Janissy - how do you know the reduction in church donations and charity hasn't helped to increase government debt?

People have pretty much given up on churches and we have more debt than ever before. It's the same in most of the developed world. Less church has gone hand in hand with more debt. How can it be denied?

The U.S. national debt comes from spending that was never previously part of church charities. It's completely unrelated to church charities.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infographics/us-national-debt

note: war, drug benefits for seniors, college financial aid, tax cuts, social security have never been funded by churches