Does Religion Have Any Good Side?

Denerick

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I have never ever had an atheist stop me in the street, rattle a box under my nose, or wake up the kids ringing the bell at night - who are these evangelical atheists you speak of? The ones who force you to read their books? Or read their posts? Or?

I deliberately chose the word 'Catholic', as I've never been stopped on the street by one. I have a couple of times by Paisleys crowd though. One time when I was off my face on drink and drugs I talked to a girl for well over an hour about what a fourth dimension would feel like were you to experience it. She was high on Christianity, I was high on amphetimines. Good times.

Irrelevant story though.

deise go deo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

19 million people have died of AIDS, today over 42 million people live with HIV, over 95% in the third world. Do you think that the church's preaching of not using condoms is stemming the spread of AIDS? Or propagating it? Despite usually being monogamous and abstaining as a single woman, a married woman is at the highest risk of contracting HIV.

I suppose stories spread from the vatican like condoms have tiny holes that let AIDS through are supposed to help?

Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids

If the preservation of innocent life is paramount then the suggestion that condoms shouldn't be used or don't work are morally reprehensible.

Well on investigation I have to conceed that your absolutly right, I had never heard of this before but must agree that the RC curches stance on condoms and aids is absolutly rediculous and damaging.
They seam to have their heads in the sand on this and cannot see which is the obvious lesser of two evils.:mad:

Ickle Magoo

Denerick wrote: »

The difference is that you are entirely motivated by an irrational hatred of religion and thus instantly categorise the First Crusade as a religious war, while in reality the truth is much more complex and has led most historians to conclude that the war aims were entirely secular, materialistic and political. What is so hard to understand about that?

I don't actually hate religion. If it kept itself to itself and stopped trying to stand in the way of legislation that effects everyone and had no power in the state systems then I'd have absolutely nothing to say about it - actually, I'd probably have a damn sight more nice things to say.

Well, most of what little I've read on the crusades doesn't support your argument - that's the main issue. I've read that we just don't know, it was a counter-attack to a muslim offensive with a well timed political move thrown in, etc, etc. Yours is the first claim I've heard that religion had nothing to do with the crusades.

Denerick wrote:

I deliberately chose the word 'Catholic', as I've never been stopped on the street by one. I have a couple of times by Paisleys crowd though. One time when I was off my face on drink and drugs I talked to a girl for well over an hour about what a fourth dimension would feel like were you to experience it. She was high on Christianity, I was high on amphetimines. Good times.

Irrelevant story though.

Okay, I take it back, I hate paisleys crowd.

I was harassed in hospital by a priest and one of the staff at the local secular play-school had to be asked repeatedly to stop with the religious stories and songs...still never had the novel experience of being evangelised by an atheist.

Denerick

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Well, most of what little I've read on the crusades doesn't support your argument - that's the main issue. I've read that we just don't know, it was a counter-attack to a muslim offensive with a well timed political move thrown in, etc, etc. Yours is the first claim I've heard that religion had nothing to do with the crusades.

I'm not really saying that, though I probably got a bit carried away earlier. I'm saying that its origins were not religious but political. The difference is that religion was a motivating factor, of course it was. One of my major pet peeves is this unthinking reaction that 'religion causes all wars'. It doesn't. Unless you chose to believe that man wouldn't have a dark heart if it wasn't for religion. Which I think is just downright silly.

still never had the novel experience of being evangelised by an atheist.

You wouldn't like it. Its a bit like dipping your balls in olive oil.

Ickle Magoo

Denerick wrote: »

I'm not really saying that, though I probably got a bit carried away earlier. I'm saying that its origins were not religious but political. The difference is that religion was a motivating factor, of course it was. One of my major pet peeves is this unthinking reaction that 'religion causes all wars'. It doesn't. Unless you chose to believe that man wouldn't have a dark heart if it wasn't for religion. Which I think is just downright silly.

I still haven't said religion causes all wars, I think it often gives a reason for people to support a war or even to continue with a war long after political motivations have waned. Whether people are aware of that when they start wars and involve religion, I have no idea. I think it's ridiculous to think there would be no war or conflicts without religion, I'm just not sure some would have lasted as long or garnered such support if religion did not exist.

Denerick wrote: »

You wouldn't like it. Its a bit like dipping your balls in olive oil.

I don't have balls...and if I did, I'm still not sure I'd know what dipping them in olive oil was like... >.<

Valmont

The Eircom evangelists are the worst. They're always ringing me and calling to my house early in the morning.

Kooli

Oh and Christmas! That's another one!

I know we can all pretend we celebrate 'Winter Festivus' or whatever, but let's face it, it's Christmas, and Christmas is brilliant!!

If Ireland ever became truly secular, and it ceased being a national holiday, I'd still take a couple of days off work, I'd still call it Christmas, and I'd still celebrate it as I do now (with no reference to religion whatsoever!)

I don't know if that really counts as a 'good side' to religion though, cos we've kind of stolen Christmas for ourselves by now...

Ickle Magoo

Kooli wrote: »

I don't know if that really counts as a 'good side' to religion though, cos we've kind of stolen Christmas for ourselves by now...

Yeah, I think Christmas and santa claus in his red suit with evergreen trees and christmas pudding is kind of a holiday in it's own right now, the whole idea was adopted from paganism and has been gathering influence from everything from coca cola to thomas nast ever since. :cool:

ThirdMan

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't think religion offers the world anything that the world couldn't get elsewhere.

I agree with you 100% here, but it brings to mind that charity thing Dawkins set up... "non-believers giving aid", or something along those lines.

A noble cause I'm sure, but all it done for me was highlight how many charities are religion based, more specifically, Christian based.

I don't think religion offers anything that secular society can't offer. But I think Dawkins highlighted an area where religion offers more. At least that's how it seems, correct me if I'm wrong.

This also brings to mind something Chomsky said about protests in the 60's/70's. He said there was large numbers of US based church groups who gave up their way of life, and sometimes their lives, to go and live amongst war-torn communities in South-East Asia and Latin America. Not as missionaries, but to stand in solidarity. Something that wasn't characteristic of secular organisations at that time.

I don't believe in God (although he deserves a capital letter ), and I have no use of religion. I like arguing these issues and consider myself an 'active' atheists. However, that's as far as it goes for me. Asking "does religion have a good side" is as pointless as Hitchens "religion poisons everything" mantra.

Ickle Magoo

My point wasn't the religious charities don't do some good - though I have to say I have more than one reservation about praying on the poor and vulnerable in order to proselyte a religion - the point was if religion didn't exist, charity still would so it also falls into the "religion not required" pile. Secular charities already include Amnesty International, Doctors without Borders, Oxfam, SHARE, UNICEF, etc...and all the these charities primary concern is helping others, they don't have a secondary motivation of spreading the atheist word or only giving help to those who sign up to their belief system.

ThirdMan

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

My point wasn't the religious charities don't do some good - though I have to say I have more than one reservation about praying on the poor and vulnerable in order to proselyte a religion - the point was if religion didn't exist, charity still would so it also falls into the "religion not required" pile. Secular charities already include Amnesty International, Doctors without Borders, Oxfam, SHARE, UNICEF, etc...and all the these charities primary concern is helping others, they don't have a secondary motivation of spreading the atheist word or only giving help to those who sign up to their belief system.

We're getting our wires crossed here. That wasn't the point I thought you were making. I was simply saying that just because secular society can do everything religion does, it doesn't mean that religious organisations don't do it in larger numbers. (This is what I've been led to believe, but I'm open to correction)

I have the same reservations about religious charities, but for all the times I've heard this argument, I still haven't been given information on these charities. What are their names so I can avoid them? For instance, which charity only helps those who sign up to their belief system? Which charities proselytise their religion?

johnfás

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

My point wasn't the religious charities don't do some good - though I have to say I have more than one reservation about praying on the poor and vulnerable in order to proselyte a religion - the point was if religion didn't exist, charity still would so it also falls into the "religion not required" pile. Secular charities already include Amnesty International, Doctors without Borders, Oxfam, SHARE, UNICEF, etc...and all the these charities primary concern is helping others, they don't have a secondary motivation of spreading the atheist word or only giving help to those who sign up to their belief system.

There was religious involvement in the establishment of many of the charities you highlighted. Oxfam was established by a Church of England clergyman, it used to meet at a university church in Oxford. Amnesty International was established by Peter Benenson who was a Jewish convert to Roman Catholicism and Eric Baker who was a heavily involved Quaker. Amnesty continues to have deep relations with many churches, particularly in England, where you will see the amnesty candle burning in many Cathedrals. SHARE (assuming you mean the Cork homeless charity) was established by the Presentation Brothers.

I don't doubt the substance of your statement, but picking examples that stick would be useful. UNICEF is a body of the United Nations and Medicin San Frontiers has no religious affiliation.

Ickle Magoo

Cork? Lol, no, Secular Humanist Aid and Relief Effort.

Peter Benenson was also a lawyer and he set up an organisation to fight for human rights and law reformation. Oxfam was originally founded in Oxford in 1942 as the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief not just by a group of Quakers but also by social activists and Oxford academics.

Regardless, that the charities were set up by atheists was never a claim I have made, they developed and were deemed to be of more benefit as secular.

Kooli

ThirdMan wrote: »

which charity only helps those who sign up to their belief system? Which charities proselytise their religion?

I would be very surprised if any of the big ones do this anymore? Though I don't doubt they did in the past.

HalloweenJack

They preach some good moral/ethical ideas and these should be encouraged, though that's not to say they have a monopoly on all good moral/ethical ideas. You can get them through thinking on your own and that should be encouraged too.

For me, the main problems with religion are the organisational structures of it and the idea of a god that should be appeased and thanked for what happens in life. I just don't agree with these ideas and they seem to be a big part for most religions.

Ickle Magoo

ThirdMan wrote: »

We're getting our wires crossed here. That wasn't the point I thought you were making. I was simply saying that just because secular society can do everything religion does, it doesn't mean that religious organisations don't do it in larger numbers. (This is what I've been led to believe, but I'm open to correction)

Sorry for the crossed wires.

Yes, religious charities certainly have a huge head start on secular charities in size and number but my point was charity is not exclusive to or by religion, it's a good side of humanity.

ThirdMan wrote: »

I have the same reservations about religious charities, but for all the times I've heard this argument, I still haven't been given information on these charities. What are their names so I can avoid them? For instance, which charity only helps those who sign up to their belief system? Which charities proselytise their religion?

There is the catholic adoption charity, operation christmas child, the well publicised criticisms of missionaries of mother theresa, missionaries in general actually, certain alcohol and drug rehabilitation charities include steps which make reference to faith, etc, etc. Have a look at the mission statements of many religious charity groups and you will see a motivation above and beyond just helping fellow man.

Look, I'm not saying religious charities don't do good work, they do of course it would be mad to suggest otherwise - but they often do their good work with a religious motivation and many religious charities operate a variation of strings attached policy of self promotion which, for me, certainly takes the shine off their "good side".

ThirdMan

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

There is the catholic adoption charity, operation christmas child, the well publicised criticisms of missionaries of mother theresa, missionaries in general actually, certain alcohol and drug rehabilitation charities include steps which make reference to faith, etc, etc. Have a look at the mission statements of many religious charity groups and you will see a motivation above and beyond just helping fellow man.

With respect, you've moved from fairly specific to incredibly vague. What are these charities?

ThirdMan

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

There is the catholic adoption charity, operation christmas child, the well publicised criticisms of missionaries of mother theresa, missionaries in general actually, certain alcohol and drug rehabilitation charities include steps which make reference to faith, etc, etc. Have a look at the mission statements of many religious charity groups and you will see a motivation above and beyond just helping fellow man.

Could you send me on a link to Operation Christmas Child, all I can find is a gift donation initiative, nothing about an adoption charity.

And could you forward me some links to the various mission statements you're referring to.

Thanks.

Ickle Magoo

ThirdMan wrote: »

With respect, you've moved from fairly specific to incredibly vague. What are these charities?

The "catholic adoption charity", that's it's name - same with "operation christmas child" and the calcutta missionaries of charity, do you want me to copy and paste the mission statements of religious charities for you?

Edit, never mind, I see you do.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/catholic-adoption-charity-finds.html

http://www.humanism.org.uk/humanism/humanism-today/humanists-doing/charities/samaritans-purse

You have google, have a wee search for the mission statements, it's not rocket science. I have no wish to try to convince you why I think secular charities are fairer and superior - if you really want to know then do your own research.

ThirdMan

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The "catholic adoption charity", that's it's name - same with "operation christmas child" and the calcutta missionaries of charity, do you want me to copy and paste the mission statements of religious charities for you?

Just the links will do, thanks.

johnfás

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

- same with "operation christmas child"

Load of nonsense. Shoeboxes from Samaritans Purse Ireland's Operation Christmas Child contain no religious information at all.

Perhaps you would review the website of Samaritans Purse Ireland and then revisit your post accordingly. We wouldn't want Boards.ie getting sued over a sensitive issue now would be. Be a bit more careful in your comments.

samaritanspurse.ie wrote:

Do you add any religious literature to the boxes ?
No, we don’t (and never have) put any religious literature into the boxes or send any with the boxes.

Do children of all religions get boxes ?
Yes, we give to children regardless of their nationality, political or religious backgrounds. The only criteria for receiving a shoebox, is the need of the child. Sometimes, in an appropriate setting and at the request of the local leader, children are offered a booklet telling the story of the nativity and the life of Jesus. When that happens, this literature is offered after the children have received their shoeboxes – there are no pre-conditions for any child to receive a shoebox.

http://samaritanspurse.ie/page.html?p=occFAQs&m=occThankYou,occLinks

ThirdMan

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You have google, have a wee search for the mission statements, it's not rocket science. I have no wish to try to convince you why I think secular charities are fairer and superior - if you really want to know then do your own research.

Listen, you don't have to convince me of anything. We're having a discussion here. You've raised certain issues that I'm interested in as well. Because you know more about this you're in a position to help me out. You get to strengthen your position and I get the information I'm looking for. I don't see what the problem is.

I've made a habit of only speaking to people on forums that way I speak to people in real life. But I suppose that's not for everybody.

Ickle Magoo

Lol, johnfás, I'm sure boards could direct them to one of the many documented criticisms as source...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/south_east/3205495.stm

Or indeed their own stafff...

"Please be assured that the commitment of Samaritan's Purse to evangelism is as strong as ever.

Christian literature is not banned from Operation Christmas Child shoeboxes in the United Kingdom or any other sending country. However, there is a difference in the way the boxes are processed in the U.K. for overseas shipment. The U.K. program removes all religious items (Christian as well as other religions) and forwards any Christian literature to our National Leadership Teams working in countries where shoebox gifts are distributed, so the Christian literature can be used with children through the local church.

Samaritan's Purse staff in the U.K. is dedicated, as we all are, to ensuring that Christian literature given by donors is used in effective ministry outreach to children through Operation Christmas Child.

The Gospel is also presented locally as part of the distribution of the gifts, and wherever possible, children are offered a Gospel storybook written in their own language called The Greatest Gift of All. Many children are also invited to enroll in a 10-lesson follow-up Bible study program, and upon completion receive a New Testament as a graduation gift.

In the United States, Christian literature remains inside the shoebox gifts given by donors. We are developing and implementing standard operating procedures to ensure that this practice is followed in the U.K. and other sending countries."

Sincerely,
Donor Ministries
Samaritan's Purse
PO Box 3000
Boone, NC 28607
828-262-1980
www.samaritanspurse.org

http://sites.google.com/site/occalert/evangelisingbooklet

Ickle Magoo

ThirdMan wrote: »

Listen, you don't have to convince me of anything. We're having a discussion here. You've raised certain issues that I'm interested in as well. Because you know more about this you're in a position to help me out. You get to strengthen your position and I get the information I'm looking for. I don't see what the problem is.

I've made a habit of only speaking to people on forums that way I speak to people in real life. But I suppose that's not for everybody.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to spend 30mins looking up missions statements that are publicly available because you want to know more, no offence. I don't need to strengthen my "position". You have the internet, you have fingers...if you have a genuine interest in what charity mission statements say then take a look.

johnfás

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Lol, johnfás, I'm sure boards could direct them to one of the many documented criticisms as source...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/south_east/3205495.stm

Or indeed their own stafff...



http://sites.google.com/site/occalert/evangelisingbooklet

Samaritans Purse Ireland is run independently of Samaritans Purse in the UK and America. You will again note that this is stated on the website of Samaritan's Purse Ireland.

samaritanspurse.ie wrote:

What is Samaritan's Purse ?
It’s an International interdenominational Christian Relief and Development organisation, registered in Ireland as an Irish charity (number CHY 14524), managed by an Irish Board.

You are posting in an Irish context, on an Irish website. Perhaps you would revisit your earlier statements in order to clarify that you are in fact referring to Samaritans Purse UK and America. You should surely have no problem in doing so.

ThirdMan

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Lol, johnfás, I'm sure boards could direct them to one of the many documented criticisms as source...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/south_east/3205495.stm

Or indeed their own stafff...



http://sites.google.com/site/occalert/evangelisingbooklet

I don't like the look of that. Some good alternatives on that British Humanist website. I like that Oxfamunwrapped.

Read a really interesting article about Peter Singer, he was talking about Oxfam and the work they do and how it's run. Really impressive. Inspired me to switch over from UNICEF.

Ickle Magoo

johnfás wrote: »

Samaritans Purse Ireland is run independently of Samaritans Purse in the UK and America. You will again note that this is stated on the website of Samaritan's Purse Ireland.



You are posting in an Irish context, on an Irish website. Perhaps you would revisit your earlier statements in order to clarify that you are in fact referring to Samaritans Purse UK and America. You should surely have no problem in doing so.

You mean this Samaritan's Purse Ireland?

Funny you should mention it because it was in Ireland I first heard criticisms about Samaritan's Purse - from parents and teachers on a parenting website. Perhaps it had something to do with this and the article from INTO?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1008/1224256169304.html

ThirdMan

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I have neither the time nor the inclination to spend 30mins looking up missions statements that are publicly available because you want to know more, no offence. I don't need to strengthen my "position". You have the internet, you have fingers...if you have a genuine interest in what charity mission statements say then take a look.

You raised the issue of mission statements. I presumed you'd know where to find them and could post me the links? I wouldn't ask 30mins work of anybody if I thought for one second that's the time it would take. This is just a misunderstanding.

As regards strengthening your 'position', it's just a turn of phrase. This forum above all is one based on a critical attitude, where nothing is accepted without evidence. Is it not keeping with the spirit of this forum that I ask you for the evidence that backs up your position?

However, you may not wish to back up your argument. That's fair enough, again just a misunderstanding.

If you must have a bad attitude, could you not direct it at me. I'm not directing one at you. Cheers.

johnfás

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You mean this Samaritan's Purse Ireland?

Funny you should mention it because it was in Ireland I first heard criticisms about Samaritan's Purse - from parents and teachers on a parenting website. Perhaps it had something to do with this and the article from INTO?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1008/1224256169304.html

Yes, an article in which Samaritans Purse Ireland outlined that it would be writing to those concerned in order to ensure that there is no confusion about the work of Samaritans Purse Ireland. The work of Samaritans Purse Ireland is quite clear on the website. You have misrepresented this work as being "strings attached" (sic) despite the contrary clearly being stated on their website. You should have no problem amending your posts to reflect this fact.

As you posted the link and claim to know about the situation, you should surely have already been aware that shoe boxes from Ireland are treated differently from shoeboxes in America, as Ms Quirke discovered following publication of her article. You should have reflected this fact in your post. Otherwise it appears that you are intentionally misrepresenting the issue. On the other hand it is perhaps the case that you are presently scrambling around Google and learning as you go along. In that case, you should equally have no problem amending your posts to recognise the reality which you have now discovered.

Ickle Magoo

No, actually, I heard of Samaritan's Purse Ireland on another website where parents and teachers were discussing the ethics of supporting an evangelical charity. Such concern was raised that the schools in question moved their support to a secular alternative cradle.ie instead. That is the reality as I know it.

Sending ahead leaflets to be distributed and actively encouraging attendance of religious classes to all those who wish a shoebox is hardly no strings attached. It may not be a condition of getting a box but it's certainly not a charitable donation free of ulterior religious motive.

deise go deo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

No, actually, I heard of Samaritan's Purse Ireland on another website where parents and teachers were discussing the ethics of supporting an evangelical charity. Such concern was raised that the schools in question moved their support to a secular alternative cradle.ie instead. That is the reality as I know it.

Sending ahead leaflets to be distributed and actively encouraging attendance of religious classes to all those who wish a shoebox is hardly no strings attached. It may not be a condition of getting a box but it's certainly not a charitable donation free of ulterior religious motive.

Well I dont know anything about this particular charity,though I do remember something about sending shoeboxes to africa when I was in school. Anyway If the gaa set up a charity and did the same thing,sent shoeboxes donated by club members to africa and while they were there handed out leaflets about the gaa, and incourged the children who they were helping to play hurling would you see it in the same light?

Ickle Magoo

I don't think you can seriously put gaa and christianity in the same box, no pun intended. How do you think gaelic football or hurling could impact on someone's entire way of life in the same way that christianity does?

deise go deo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't think you can seriously put gaa and christianity in the same box, no pun intended. How do you think gaelic football or hurling could impact on someone's entire way of life in the same way that christianity does?

Well GAA arguably affects intercounty players way of life, Anyway thats not the point, The issue is about ulterior motives. your argument only holds true if you dont like religion.

Ickle Magoo

And intercounty players get their GAA info in shoeboxes do they? I'm not sure what irish players have to do with your analogy of the gaa spreading the word in other parts of the world. The analogy only works if you add that the GAA's wish is to introduce GAA in place of any and all native sports, anyway.

I think it's unethical to proselyte under the guise of charity, that's why I don't support religious charities. If other people feel they do great work and no harm, they are free to support them. :cool:

goingpostal

Which is better? Doing charity work because it is the right thing to do and because you want to alleviated your fellow human beings suffering. Or doing charity work because you are afraid that some purportedly magic Jew who may or may not have lived 2000 years ago and who really really loves you, will send you to eternal hellfire if you don't do it. Hmmmmmm

deise go deo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

And intercounty players get their GAA info in shoeboxes do they? I'm not sure what irish players have to do with your analogy of the gaa spreading the word in other parts of the world.

You asked if GAA can afect your way of life. I argued it can but it isent relevent to the comparison.

The analogy only works if you add that the GAA's wish is to introduce GAA in place of any and all native sports, anyway.

I dont see that scale has a bareing on the principle of ethics.
Would Stalin have been less evil if he had only killed 15 million of his own people as opposed to 30.

I think it's unethical to proselyte under the guise of charity, that's why I don't support religious charities. :cool:

You have made the argument that religious charities have ulterior motives
and as a result you beleive them to be unethical.
I presented you with the seniario of a non religious orginasation operating a charity but which has the same ulterior motives, As you seam not to have a problem with the non religious charity haveing ulterior motives then I put it to you that it is not the ulterior motives you have a problem with but religion. I suggest that it is your dislike of religion that makes you see a difference between the two.:cool:

Ickle Magoo

Oh dear, godwin-ing your own thread.

No, you made some ridiculous and not even close comparison in order to try to crowbar some kind of ethical acceptability...so ridiculous you then twice noted the irrelevancy of your own analogy. :pac:

deise go deo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Oh dear, godwin-ing your own thread.

No, you made some ridiculous and not even close comparison in order to try to crowbar some kind of ethical acceptability...so ridiculous you then twice noted the irrelevancy of your own analogy. :pac:

I have stated why I started the thread and I havent seen it anywhere that if you start a thread you cant take sides.

You said that you dislike Religious charities because of their Ulterior motives.
I have given a hypotethical secular organisation with the same Ulterior motives.
You seam to only have a problem with the religious charity haveing ulterior motives and not the secular charity. So logically it seams to me it is the religious aspect to that charity not the ulterior motives that you have a problem with as you claimed.

chops1990

strobe wrote: »

Zeitgeist is certainly interesting but it is also utterly littered with half-truths and out and out falsehoods. Take anything you seen in it with a touch of salt, at the very least look to back up any assertions it makes from more reliable sources.

Oh i know yeah, it just makes ya think a bit though. But ya most of zeitgeist is waffly spoof

Ickle Magoo

deise go deo,

Who said anything about not being allowed to take sides? I said you godwined it...

Godwin's law

They aren't the same ulterior motives tho, are they - so there is nothing logical about your argument. Merely sending shoe-boxes with a leaflet about GAA is not comparable to how evangelical charities operate. Apples and oranges.

You can't seriously think including a leaflet on GAA or frisbee or knitting or whatever, in a charity box is akin to what evangelising charities do and the impact of peoples lives they intend on making?

bnt

The phrasing of the question is awkward, I think. Religious people do good things, but is that to the credit of the religion, or to the credit of a good person?

I've heard it said that religion is an "enabler" of bad deeds, but I have no problem believing it's an "enabler" of good deeds too. How much religion do you need to help someone?

deise go deo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

deise go deo,

Who said anything about not being allowed to take sides? I said you godwined it...

Godwin's law

They aren't the same ulterior motives tho, are they - so there is nothing logical about your argument. Merely sending shoe-boxes with a leaflet about GAA is not comparable to how evangelical charities operate. Apples and oranges.

You can't seriously think including a leaflet on GAA or frisbee or knitting or whatever, in a charity box is akin to what evangelising charities do and the impact of peoples lives they intend on making?

Well then its as I said, the argument only works if you dislike Religion to begin with. The motive is the same in both instances. Increasing the size of an organisation to further your own aims.

I have no intrest in ending the discussion on this thread.:rolleyes:

JimiTime

goingpostal wrote: »

Which is better? Doing charity work because it is the right thing to do and because you want to alleviated your fellow human beings suffering. Or doing charity work because you are afraid that some purportedly magic Jew who may or may not have lived 2000 years ago and who really really loves you, will send you to eternal hellfire if you don't do it. Hmmmmmm

Thats a rather skewered view of the motivations of many. Maybe there are some people with this motivation, but I think you find people who think in this way wont generally continue to do whats right due to the negative motive.

The view of many Christians, is not 'I better do this or I'll be fried', but rather 'I Love my Father, so will do his will'. Realsing what our Father has done for us, and what Jesus Christ did, we try to follow his selfless and loving example.

Noreen1

My children fill shoeboxes every single year - because they want to give a Christmas gift to children who have less than themselves.
They do so out of love and generosity, to celebrate the true meaning of Christmas, and Christian spirit.

They, as children, have no ulterior motive. They place no preconditions on who receives a box, Christian or otherwise. Neither do they expect/hope for any "conversions" - though it would obviously be wrong to deny a Christian motive. They do it to celebrate a Christian festival, by showing Christian love.

Should they deny their Christianity?

Honestly, suggesting that children have some kind of ulterior motive in being generous is not only ridiculous - it's downright offensive!


Noreen

robindch

Noreen1 wrote: »

They do it to celebrate a Christian festival, by showing Christian love.

The gift-giving bit of the christmas celebration derived from the earlier Roman festival of Saturnalia -- it's not something that christians started (more on christmas traditions here).

Noreen1 wrote: »

Honestly, suggesting that children have some kind of ulterior motive in being generous is not only ridiculous - it's downright offensive!

In this case, you're quite right.

But do bear the other side of the argument in mind too. Since some religious people -- it's more common in my experience amongst christians -- believe that an act can only be considered "good" if it's done within the correct religious framework, and therefore, an atheist or agnostic can never genuinely do anything good. And, frankly, that's a bit rich!

Zombrex

Noreen1 wrote: »

My children fill shoeboxes every single year - because they want to give a Christmas gift to children who have less than themselves.
They do so out of love and generosity, to celebrate the true meaning of Christmas, and Christian spirit.

They, as children, have no ulterior motive. They place no preconditions on who receives a box, Christian or otherwise. Neither do they expect/hope for any "conversions" - though it would obviously be wrong to deny a Christian motive. They do it to celebrate a Christian festival, by showing Christian love.

Should they deny their Christianity?

Honestly, suggesting that children have some kind of ulterior motive in being generous is not only ridiculous - it's downright offensive!


Noreen

Your children aren't Christians.

They shouldn't deny their natural instinct toward altruism, but it is you as a Christian adult who puts the Christians spin on that.
Your children would be just as happy to do this around any other religious holiday or secular event.

magicbastarder

robindch wrote: »

Since some religious people -- it's more common in my experience amongst christians -- believe that an act can only be considered "good" if it's done within the correct religious framework, and therefore, an atheist or agnostic can never genuinely do anything good.

i've heard it argued more strongly than that. a couple of mormons who insisted any good act was god acting through you, and any bad act was your own. they struggled to explain how that did not mean humans are irretrievably evil.

Zombrex

magicbastarder wrote: »

i've heard it argued more strongly than that. a couple of mormons who insisted any good act was god acting through you, and any bad act was your own. they struggled to explain how that did not mean humans are irretrievably evil.

yeah, we have that discussion with Christians on Boards.ie. The other thing they struggle with is how this isn't God's responsibility that we are like this.

robindch

magicbastarder wrote: »

i've heard it argued more strongly than that.

There's a lot more to it alright -- I was going to mention Cardinal O'Connor's comment that atheists "are not fully human", but it seems that youtube has deleted the record on this.

Noreen1

robindch wrote: »

The gift-giving bit of the christmas celebration derived from the earlier Roman festival of Saturnalia -- it's not something that christians started (more on christmas traditions here).In this case, you're quite right.

Yes, I've read about Saturnalia before. It's not the reason we (in my household) celebrate Christmas the way we do, though.

robindch wrote: »

But do bear the other side of the argument in mind too. Since some religious people -- it's more common in my experience amongst christians -- believe that an act can only be considered "good" if it's done within the correct religious framework, and therefore, an atheist or agnostic can never genuinely do anything good. And, frankly, that's a bit rich!

Such "Christians" are seriously misguided imo.
My own belief is that my faith motivates me to try to do what is good/right.
I don't presume to judge other people or their motives, though. A good act remains a good act - it doesn't make any difference what the person who does good believes - or doesn't believe.
JMO.

Noreen

I