The Challenge to Atheists: Why don't Atheists have organizations doing welfare work?

Oh dear Editor, just what is "deliberately insulting" about pointing out facts?

You seem to be obsessed with a victim mentally about such things as "asserting our democratic rights to live without becoming the victims of religious power politics". No doubt some people do suffer from religeous interference, but also there are many more who become the beneficiaries of religeous intervention to problems that have not always been caused by religion, but by secular power and greed.

Don't you think that, like everything in life, religion has its bad side as well as its good side? Or do you believe (as I have noticed) that Humanists have a propensity to believe in - over the rainbow - perfection? If the evil side of things were removed then no doubt the good side would evaporate with them.

Yes no doubt there are many Atheists who work in voluntary organisations but the premise of your article was why is it that there are no Atheist originated organisations like the religeous ones?

However you have already answered that yourself.

Are they facts Peter? Have another look at Forster's headline. That is a deliberate denial of a fact? He is trying to pretend Atheism is a faith which is an absolute contradiction of an important fact. I don't have time to delve into the beliefs of the original founders of Amnesty and the Red Cross. They most likely were Christians but whether they set up these organizations because of Christianity is an open question.
Now these organizations in particular avoid the Christian brand because they need to be neutral. Anyway does anyone besides Forster and other loudmouthed Christians imagine the people who work for them are 1. All Christians and 2. All doing it because of Christianity? There you go badgering the Editor with your "Oh Dear Editor" but he is right to explain why Forster is insulting and he answered the Question about Atheist Organizations. Why take sides with a jerk like Forster?

Good on you Peter for bringing a little sanity into this website where deluded people badmouth Christians and have a mutual congratulation society going on.
They carry on as though they are victims but they enjoy all the comforts and privileges that Christianity has brought into Australian society. Notice that refugees dont leave Australia, they come here from places that dont have the benefits of Christian faith, the faith that enabled brave men and women to form the great nation we have here. Militant atheism is trying to undermine it and it is right to answer them.

I've already said "Yes no doubt there are many Atheists who work in voluntary organisations". And I am not taking anyone's side and certainly not calling anyone "Jerks". By talking about "facts" I was refering to the fact about the religious organisation as opposed to Atheist organisations, is that not a fact.

In regard to Amnesty and the Red Cross, I don't know about Amnesty but I would have thought it self evident that an organisation that had a cross as it symbol would be Christian in origin.

Please stop inventing points of contention where they do not exist.

There is something wrong with this website. My last comment appears twice. Anyway let them read it twice, they probably need to.

Peter Benenson, the founder of the human rights group Amnesty International, has died, the group has announced.

The fact that Amnesty International will be holding a public memorial service and there will be a private ceremony for family members. Suggests that (at least) the family have some religeous affiliation.

Yes Mary that has happened to me a few times. If they don't like you, or what you are saying, then they do it to make you look stupid, so the gang can have a field day pointing it out.

Mary and Peter, it happens if you click on Save twice. Also people occasionally lose a comment if they Preview and then fail to click on Save so it pays to copy your own comment on to your computer in the usual way.

It happens to the best of us. No one is attempting to make you look stupid. It isn't a big problem. I'll fix it, but I'll leave Mary's last comment and yours here for your edification and that of anyone else who has this problem.

Absolutely paranoid, aren't you two? I've said it before and I'll say it again, Mary. If you don't like us, go away.

As for the memorial service for the founder of Amnesty International, how does that in any way signify a religious affiliation? Perhaps you think that when atheists die they are simply left to rot wherever they fall by their heathen brethren. It seems more likely that the people who loved him wish to celebrate his life and mourn his passing together. Don't try to paint them with your superstitions.

The symbol of the Red Cross is a reversal of the Swiss flag, or at least that is the official story which is promoted to end the argument that the cross derives from Christian roots.

P.S. Peter, learn to spell religious. It makes you look even more foolish than your ill-educated ranting manages to do.

"P.S. Peter, learn to spell religious. It makes you look even more foolish than your ill-educated ranting manages to do."

My spell checker says "religeous" is correct, but I'm surprised that you would stoop to such childishness trulyfree, I thought we'd reached an understanding.

And if the Red Cross does not have religeous connotations, then why does the Islamic equivalent organisation have the Red Crescent?

Actually trulyfree you raise a very good point, which I had not thought of.

Just what happens to Atheists when they cast off their mortal coil? Are they then forced to finally submit to the indignity of an evil religeous ceremony with their loved ones thinking: well he had these ideas but now we know what's best for him. Fascinating.

Well, I've never seen it spelt that way before. Your spellchecker must be possessed by the Devil.

I expect that most people's final departure is in the manner they themselves would most have wished, assuming their family respects them. Obviously in one sense it doesn't matter since they're not actually there, but I would imagine most Atheists have a non-religious remembrance.

The Red Crescent was adopted for use in Muslim countries who wouldn't accept the Red Cross, mistakenly believing it to be of Christian origins.

As regards our "understanding", I'm less inclined to be forgiving when you join Mary in accusing the Editor of conspiring to undermine your position. Frankly, given your occasional fits of reason, I'm surprised you would side with her at all. She's a nasty piece of work by any standards.

The Editor, on the other hand, manages to remain far more impassive and circumspect than I would in his position.

Let's be fair, Mary didn't say anything except that her post appeared twice. It was I who said that it had happened to me, which it has, and other happening. So no need to make yourself a Sir Galahad and don't blame Mary.

PS: I do not know the woman, nor who she is, but is seems a bit harsh that you would call her "a nasty piece of work" just because she disagrees with what you believe .

It's nothing to do with her disagreeing with me. Her posts are regularly filled with very unpleasant sentiments, most notably racism and bigotry. For someone who calls herself a Christian she is capable of extraordinary levels of intolerance.

I may disagree with much of what you have to say but at least you mostly address the issues at hand. To be honest, I am frequently shocked by what the good lady is prepared to post.

A matter that has been missed here is that Christianity and the other religions teach their followers and anyone else who will listen that there is a God who inspired a Bible/Koran etc, who is interested in each of us and that each of us will have an eternal life in which to be punished or rewarded for obeying the rules of their church spokespeople.
There is no evidence for any of this. This false belief may get some people to do some good things but equally it can be and has been used to get people to do evil.
We see that you don't need religion to do good things. In spite of all the propaganda it is obvious that Atheists do a great deal of good and if any of them do harm they are not inspired to do it by Atheism. There are no Atheist priests. I have never heard of an Atheist missionary inciting African tribesmen to kill homosexuals. No Atheists have told lies saying condoms caused AIDs. I could go on and on but that will do.

Jack1 have you been reading what this blog is about? It is asking the question of why there are so many religiously based charitable organisation and NO Atheist ones.

Any normal person would conclude from that that you do need religion to promote good work. Even if occasionally religion is misused for evil purposes.

Peter, it could be you who hasn't been reading what the blog is about. It sets out to answer the question why there are no Atheist organizations doing welfare work. You say that,
"Any normal person would conclude from that that you do need religion to promote good work. Even if occasionally religion is misused for evil purposes."
A normal person would conclude no such thing. Not only the blog, but the experience of every one of us tells us that Atheists actually do good work. They just don't have an organization to constantly blare out propaganda about it. Also the misuse of religion for evil purposes is not just occasional, it is frequent.

Jenny I do not quite understand your logic.

In my previous post I should have put 'or at least it seems we need religion to form the structures from which good works can be done' whether carried out by Atheists or religious people? You admit that: "Atheists actually do good work. They just don't have an organization to constantly blare out propaganda about it"

Does it really matter whether propaganda is blared out or not, as long as the good work gets done? But in any case I don't think that religeous people do actually blare out (you mean to boast) anything. There are at least some of them who do wonderful work in the most humble and inconspicuous ways.

It seems that it is impossible to point out facts to Atheists without inciting their irritation, as if it is an assault on what they believe

Peter, atheists are generally too proud to take charity, on the other hand they see welfare as their natural due. This attitude influences all their decisions regarding charity and government. However, Richard Dawkins and others has become so sick of being whipped by the charity stick that they have set up their own charities, although they probably know that it is not right of them to do so.

Its nice to see a sensible comment from you carusmm. More of these and less of the others would be welcome.

I'm sorry carusmm and I certainly do not wish to stir up or antagonise you, but just how do you know whether Atheists are too proud, or not too proud, or what they are too proud about? I would suggest that you have only ever been in touch with about 0.0001 percent of Atheists to know what they think about things, so how can you speak on their behalf?

And as for Atheists seeing welfare as their natural right, do you mean like the fanatical parasite in London who declared that "my benefits belong to Allah"?