Why Don't Atheists Contribute To Society?

[the_human_being]

The OP intent is to query atheists as individuals as to if they have ever actually contributed anything at all toward helping their fellow man. Thus far, the answer has been a very loud "NO".

So your OP was intended to contrast the actions individual atheists with those of churches? Sounds like apples and oranges. Do you have a tally of what individual theists contributed outside of their churches?

No. Do you have a tally of what individual atheists have contributed? If you are interested, perhaps you should start a thread inquiring about what individual Christians have contributed. Thus far on this thread, I have only discovered where one atheist contributed money. Non have appeared to have contributed any of their time and energy.

 

[the_human_being]

No, I really pay little attention to atheists and certainly never watch Wolf Blitzer.

Oh look. A christian who lies.

What make you think you are the center of anyone's attention? You are a member of one of the very least in numbers of society. There are not enough of you to be important.

There are enough to cause you to open goofy threads like this one.

Angry because it proved my point? Does it prick you because it shows you to not care about your fellow man?

You're more than a little bit confused. This thread is nothing more than a demonstration of your religiously inspired intolerance and a fair amount of self-loathing.

In the real world though, religion or the lack thereof has little to do with an individual's sense of caring for his fellow man.

 

[the_human_being]

There is a difference between "atheist" and "secular" organizations.

Atheists make up 1.6% of the US population so it is hardly surprising that they don't have very many purely atheist groups and end up in secular organizations.

Atheists do make some serious contributions in some fields: if every atheist left America, we would lose 85 percent of our scientists

On the other hand atheists don't make some serious contributions in other fields: they make up only a fraction of one percent of the US federal prison population.

The OP has asks nothing at all about what atheists do for a living. One's profession is on the receiving end. One's giving is on the giving end.

Some professions contribute to the advancement of mankind (science) and some do not (crime). You gave examples of how churches provide charity, and no one can dispute that, but can you give some historical examples of how churches made society better by advancing knowledge? Or was all that done in spite of the church?[/QUOTE]

Surely you are aware of missionaries?

 

[the_human_being]

Were you there? Did you hand out water or do anything at all yourself?

I don't recall making any such claim. First, I'm not an atheist (I'm agnostic) and second, I don't live near LA. Not that it matters but I did contribute some relief $ and directly supported the relief effort through my professional work.

Were you not getting paid?

 

[HUGGY]

There is a difference between "atheist" and "secular" organizations.

Atheists make up 1.6% of the US population so it is hardly surprising that they don't have very many purely atheist groups and end up in secular organizations.

Atheists do make some serious contributions in some fields: if every atheist left America, we would lose 85 percent of our scientists

On the other hand atheists don't make some serious contributions in other fields: they make up only a fraction of one percent of the US federal prison population.

The OP has asks nothing at all about what atheists do for a living. One's profession is on the receiving end. One's giving is on the giving end.

Some professions contribute to the advancement of mankind (science) and some do not (crime). You gave examples of how churches provide charity, and no one can dispute that, but can you give some historical examples of how churches made society better by advancing knowledge? Or was all that done in spite of the church?

Surely you are aware of missionaries?[/QUOTE]

Ya...we can thank them for destroying what was left of the few indigenous societies left on the planet. Chalk up another "success" to religion. What's not to like about the missionaries?

 

[the_human_being]

As an aside I will admit that I am more fortunate as an individual than many folks are. I do have the assets in place to provide the logistics necessary to transport bottled water and other necessities to an area impacted by storms, flooding, fires, etc. So I suppose the saying that "to whom much is given, much is required" is true. It is a good thing that many individuals and companies regardless of religious views can be relied on in times of difficulty.

 

[the_human_being]

There is a difference between "atheist" and "secular" organizations.

Atheists make up 1.6% of the US population so it is hardly surprising that they don't have very many purely atheist groups and end up in secular organizations.

Atheists do make some serious contributions in some fields: if every atheist left America, we would lose 85 percent of our scientists

On the other hand atheists don't make some serious contributions in other fields: they make up only a fraction of one percent of the US federal prison population.

The OP has asks nothing at all about what atheists do for a living. One's profession is on the receiving end. One's giving is on the giving end.

Some professions contribute to the advancement of mankind (science) and some do not (crime). You gave examples of how churches provide charity, and no one can dispute that, but can you give some historical examples of how churches made society better by advancing knowledge? Or was all that done in spite of the church?

Surely you are aware of missionaries?

Ya...we can thank them for destroying what was left of the few indigenous societies left on the planet. Chalk up another "success" to religion. What's not to like about the missionaries? [/QUOTE]

You're really full of hate, aren't you?

 

[HUGGY]

There is a difference between "atheist" and "secular" organizations.

Atheists make up 1.6% of the US population so it is hardly surprising that they don't have very many purely atheist groups and end up in secular organizations.

Atheists do make some serious contributions in some fields: if every atheist left America, we would lose 85 percent of our scientists

On the other hand atheists don't make some serious contributions in other fields: they make up only a fraction of one percent of the US federal prison population.

The OP has asks nothing at all about what atheists do for a living. One's profession is on the receiving end. One's giving is on the giving end.

Some professions contribute to the advancement of mankind (science) and some do not (crime). You gave examples of how churches provide charity, and no one can dispute that, but can you give some historical examples of how churches made society better by advancing knowledge? Or was all that done in spite of the church?

Surely you are aware of missionaries?

Ya...we can thank them for destroying what was left of the few indigenous societies left on the planet. Chalk up another "success" to religion. What's not to like about the missionaries?

You're really full of hate, aren't you?[/QUOTE]

Full?

Naw... I always try to leave room for the latest religist's nonsense to hate on.

 

[alang1216]

The OP intent is to query atheists as individuals as to if they have ever actually contributed anything at all toward helping their fellow man. Thus far, the answer has been a very loud "NO".

So your OP was intended to contrast the actions individual atheists with those of churches? Sounds like apples and oranges. Do you have a tally of what individual theists contributed outside of their churches?

No. Do you have a tally of what individual atheists have contributed? If you are interested, perhaps you should start a thread inquiring about what individual Christians have contributed. Thus far on this thread, I have only discovered where one atheist contributed money. Non have appeared to have contributed any of their time and energy.

If atheists are less than 2% of the population, every atheist contribution equals 50 theist contributions. I'm comfortable that atheists are pulling their weight.

 

[alang1216]

Surely you are aware of missionaries?

Someone more cynical than me might say those missionaries were using technological benefits that the church may not have had any part of to entice the populace to their church.

 

[Hollie]

No, I really pay little attention to atheists and certainly never watch Wolf Blitzer.

Oh look. A christian who lies.

What make you think you are the center of anyone's attention? You are a member of one of the very least in numbers of society. There are not enough of you to be important.

There are enough to cause you to open goofy threads like this one.

Angry because it proved my point? Does it prick you because it shows you to not care about your fellow man?

You're more than a little bit confused. This thread is nothing more than a demonstration of your religiously inspired intolerance and a fair amount of self-loathing.

In the real world though, religion or the lack thereof has little to do with an individual's sense of caring for his fellow man.

That is in complete contradiction to what you hoped to portray with pointless thread.

 

[alang1216]

Were you there? Did you hand out water or do anything at all yourself?

I don't recall making any such claim. First, I'm not an atheist (I'm agnostic) and second, I don't live near LA. Not that it matters but I did contribute some relief $ and directly supported the relief effort through my professional work.

Were you not getting paid?

You asked if I assisted not if I benefited. As it happens, both are true, and no I did not give everything I owned to the victims. Did you?

 

[Flopper]

When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, Christian churches gathered up water and toiletries and other basic human needs and handed out to the storm victims. When Ivan hit, they did the same thing. It has happened over and over whenever their has been a natural disaster. Even individual families who have fell victim to home fires, floods, etc., have been helped by the Church.

Where are the atheists in all this?

Bill Gates, who recently commented, I’m not somebody who goes to church on a regular basis. The specific elements of Christianity are not something I’m a huge believer in", has so far donated 38 billion dollars to charities. Warrent Buffet, who avoids houses of worship and whose concerns are entirely secular donates billions to charities.

One does not have to believe in God to believe in the betterment of mankind. Although for tax purposes, ever dollar given to a church is considered a charitable donation, just how much of those collections actually go to the poor, the sick, and victims of disasters? The primary mission of the church is not to save lives but save souls.

 

[alang1216]

Christians have given enormous sums to their churches over the centuries and, although much went to charities, they also have cathedrals and artwork to awe the people.

 

[SmedlyButler]

......................................................................................

Surely you are aware of missionaries?

Okay, up until now your holier-than-thou thread has added a bit of humor to my Sat. morn. But now you're talking some serious shit. I could give you hundreds of pages relating the horrors and destruction bestowed on indigenous populations by do-gooder "Christian" missionaries. Let's start with one.

The South Pacific

"We start our catalog of the brutality of Christian missionaries in the island of Tahiti. In 1797, thirty years after the discovery of Tahiti by Wallis, the first missionaries landed on the island. The missionaries, sent by the London Missionary Society, tried for seven years to convert the natives but were unable to make any headway.
It was then that they discovered, as if by miracle, the proper method of converting the Tahitians. They discovered that the local chief, Pomare, liked alcohol (distilled by the missionaries) - so much that he became an alcoholic. Addicted to the distilled spirit (perhaps the holy spirit), Pomare agreed to back the missionaries in their work of conversion. Pomare, supplied with western firearms, easily subdued his native opponents. Upon his victory over his rivals, the whole island was forcibly converted in one day.

Then the process of inculcating "Christian virtues" began. Persistent unbelievers, those who refused to be converted, were executed. Singing was banned (except for hymns) and all forms of adornment, flowers or tattoo were disallowed. Of course, surfing and dancing were not permitted as well. The punishment for breaking any of these rules included, among others, being sentenced to hard labour.

Within thirty years of missionary control, the population of Tahiti fell from an inital estimate of 20,000 to 6,000.

From Tahiti, the missionaries moved on to the neighbouring islands. They employed the same tactic that had served them so well in Tahiti: they would introduce the local chief to alcohol, made him and alcholic, convert him to Christianity and then leave it to the chief to convert the locals. After converting the majority the minority that refused to convert were persecuted and sometimes executed. On the island of Raratonga, men were conscripted into the missionary police to help eliminate the remaining idolators. On another island, Raiatea, a man who was able to forecast the weather by studying the behaviour of fish was executed for witchcraft.

This was how the South Pacific was Christianized".

 

[Flopper]

......................................................................................

Surely you are aware of missionaries?

Okay, up until now your holier-than-thou thread has added a bit of humor to my Sat. morn. But now you're talking some serious shit. I could give you hundreds of pages relating the horrors and destruction bestowed on indigenous populations by do-gooder "Christian" missionaries. Let's start with one.

The South Pacific

"We start our catalog of the brutality of Christian missionaries in the island of Tahiti. In 1797, thirty years after the discovery of Tahiti by Wallis, the first missionaries landed on the island. The missionaries, sent by the London Missionary Society, tried for seven years to convert the natives but were unable to make any headway.
It was then that they discovered, as if by miracle, the proper method of converting the Tahitians. They discovered that the local chief, Pomare, liked alcohol (distilled by the missionaries) - so much that he became an alcoholic. Addicted to the distilled spirit (perhaps the holy spirit), Pomare agreed to back the missionaries in their work of conversion. Pomare, supplied with western firearms, easily subdued his native opponents. Upon his victory over his rivals, the whole island was forcibly converted in one day.

Then the process of inculcating "Christian virtues" began. Persistent unbelievers, those who refused to be converted, were executed. Singing was banned (except for hymns) and all forms of adornment, flowers or tattoo were disallowed. Of course, surfing and dancing were not permitted as well. The punishment for breaking any of these rules included, among others, being sentenced to hard labour.

Within thirty years of missionary control, the population of Tahiti fell from an inital estimate of 20,000 to 6,000.

From Tahiti, the missionaries moved on to the neighbouring islands. They employed the same tactic that had served them so well in Tahiti: they would introduce the local chief to alcohol, made him and alcholic, convert him to Christianity and then leave it to the chief to convert the locals. After converting the majority the minority that refused to convert were persecuted and sometimes executed. On the island of Raratonga, men were conscripted into the missionary police to help eliminate the remaining idolators. On another island, Raiatea, a man who was able to forecast the weather by studying the behaviour of fish was executed for witchcraft.

This was how the South Pacific was Christianized".

I have never agreed with proselytizing. Christian principals should be able to stand on their own merit. There is no need to cram it down the throats of nonbelievers. So much of the worlds problems are result of trying force one's religion on others. If Christians believed as Buddhist, that there are many paths up the mountain and each person should find their own path, the world would be a lot better place to live in.

 

[the_human_being]

......................................................................................

Surely you are aware of missionaries?

Okay, up until now your holier-than-thou thread has added a bit of humor to my Sat. morn. But now you're talking some serious shit. I could give you hundreds of pages relating the horrors and destruction bestowed on indigenous populations by do-gooder "Christian" missionaries. Let's start with one.

The South Pacific

"We start our catalog of the brutality of Christian missionaries in the island of Tahiti. In 1797, thirty years after the discovery of Tahiti by Wallis, the first missionaries landed on the island. The missionaries, sent by the London Missionary Society, tried for seven years to convert the natives but were unable to make any headway.
It was then that they discovered, as if by miracle, the proper method of converting the Tahitians. They discovered that the local chief, Pomare, liked alcohol (distilled by the missionaries) - so much that he became an alcoholic. Addicted to the distilled spirit (perhaps the holy spirit), Pomare agreed to back the missionaries in their work of conversion. Pomare, supplied with western firearms, easily subdued his native opponents. Upon his victory over his rivals, the whole island was forcibly converted in one day.

Then the process of inculcating "Christian virtues" began. Persistent unbelievers, those who refused to be converted, were executed. Singing was banned (except for hymns) and all forms of adornment, flowers or tattoo were disallowed. Of course, surfing and dancing were not permitted as well. The punishment for breaking any of these rules included, among others, being sentenced to hard labour.

Within thirty years of missionary control, the population of Tahiti fell from an inital estimate of 20,000 to 6,000.

From Tahiti, the missionaries moved on to the neighbouring islands. They employed the same tactic that had served them so well in Tahiti: they would introduce the local chief to alcohol, made him and alcholic, convert him to Christianity and then leave it to the chief to convert the locals. After converting the majority the minority that refused to convert were persecuted and sometimes executed. On the island of Raratonga, men were conscripted into the missionary police to help eliminate the remaining idolators. On another island, Raiatea, a man who was able to forecast the weather by studying the behaviour of fish was executed for witchcraft.

This was how the South Pacific was Christianized".

Care to comment upon how the United States government has treated the American Indian? Your gripe is with Christianity. Point taken, but Christianity is not the only one guilty.

Are you one of those affected by Christian missionaries or the government's treatment of the American Indian or are you simply only looking for something to point your finger out as an injustice and complain about something that had absolutely no effect on your person?

 

[the_human_being]

......................................................................................

Surely you are aware of missionaries?

Okay, up until now your holier-than-thou thread has added a bit of humor to my Sat. morn. But now you're talking some serious shit. I could give you hundreds of pages relating the horrors and destruction bestowed on indigenous populations by do-gooder "Christian" missionaries. Let's start with one.

The South Pacific

"We start our catalog of the brutality of Christian missionaries in the island of Tahiti. In 1797, thirty years after the discovery of Tahiti by Wallis, the first missionaries landed on the island. The missionaries, sent by the London Missionary Society, tried for seven years to convert the natives but were unable to make any headway.
It was then that they discovered, as if by miracle, the proper method of converting the Tahitians. They discovered that the local chief, Pomare, liked alcohol (distilled by the missionaries) - so much that he became an alcoholic. Addicted to the distilled spirit (perhaps the holy spirit), Pomare agreed to back the missionaries in their work of conversion. Pomare, supplied with western firearms, easily subdued his native opponents. Upon his victory over his rivals, the whole island was forcibly converted in one day.

Then the process of inculcating "Christian virtues" began. Persistent unbelievers, those who refused to be converted, were executed. Singing was banned (except for hymns) and all forms of adornment, flowers or tattoo were disallowed. Of course, surfing and dancing were not permitted as well. The punishment for breaking any of these rules included, among others, being sentenced to hard labour.

Within thirty years of missionary control, the population of Tahiti fell from an inital estimate of 20,000 to 6,000.

From Tahiti, the missionaries moved on to the neighbouring islands. They employed the same tactic that had served them so well in Tahiti: they would introduce the local chief to alcohol, made him and alcholic, convert him to Christianity and then leave it to the chief to convert the locals. After converting the majority the minority that refused to convert were persecuted and sometimes executed. On the island of Raratonga, men were conscripted into the missionary police to help eliminate the remaining idolators. On another island, Raiatea, a man who was able to forecast the weather by studying the behaviour of fish was executed for witchcraft.

This was how the South Pacific was Christianized".

I have never agreed with proselytizing. Christian principals should be able to stand on their own merit. There is no need to cram it down the throats of nonbelievers. So much of the worlds problems are result of trying force one's religion on others. If Christians believed as Buddhist, that there are many paths up the mountain and each person should find their own path, the world would be a lot better place to live in.

I agree but I must point out that as it appears to me, most of the complaining and sheer hatred exhibited is from the atheists crowd.

 

[the_human_being]

Christians have given enormous sums to their churches over the centuries and, although much went to charities, they also have cathedrals and artwork to awe the people.

What's wrong with that? It's their money.

 

[the_human_being]

When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, Christian churches gathered up water and toiletries and other basic human needs and handed out to the storm victims. When Ivan hit, they did the same thing. It has happened over and over whenever their has been a natural disaster. Even individual families who have fell victim to home fires, floods, etc., have been helped by the Church.

Where are the atheists in all this?

Bill Gates, who recently commented, I’m not somebody who goes to church on a regular basis. The specific elements of Christianity are not something I’m a huge believer in", has so far donated 38 billion dollars to charities. Warrent Buffet, who avoids houses of worship and whose concerns are entirely secular donates billions to charities.

One does not have to believe in God to believe in the betterment of mankind. Although for tax purposes, ever dollar given to a church is considered a charitable donation, just how much of those collections actually go to the poor, the sick, and victims of disasters? The primary mission of the church is not to save lives but save souls.

Many folks who call themselves Christians fail to attend church on a regular basis as well. Because Bill Gates does not attend on a regular basis in no way proves he is an atheist either.