this post was submitted on
486 points (57% like it)
1,883 up votes 1,397 down votes
shortlink:

atheism

subscribe1,030,232 readers

Help victims of the Aurora shootings

Help victims of the Sikh shootings

Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here. Please read our FAQ.
New posts: New Rising
Self posts: New Relevant
Non-image posts: New Relevant

Recommended reading and viewing

Thank you notes

Related Subreddits <--the big list
GodlessWomen YoungAtheists AtheistParents
BlackAtheism AtheistGems DebateAnAtheist
skeptic agnostic freethought
antitheism humanism Hitchens
a6theism10 tfbd AdviceAtheists
Events
10/5-6 NAPCON2012 - Boston
08/11 Regional Conference - St. Paul MN
Giving
DWB/MSF fundraiser
Kiva lending team
FBB's Appeal to Freethinkers to Fight Cancer
Camp Quest
Ex* Groups
ex-Muslim ex-Catholic ex-Mormon
ex-JW ex-Jew ex-SistersinZion
ex-Bahai ex-Christian ex-Adventist
Assistance
Coming Out
Atheist Havens
Start an Atheist Club at Your School

Chat: #reddit-atheism on irc.freenode.net

Watch: #/r/atheism on reddit.tv

Read The FAQ

Submit Rage Comic

Submit Facebook Chat

Submit Meme

Submit Something Else

a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

485
486

So Christians aren't so helpful after all... (imgur.com)

submitted ago by [deleted]

all 145 comments
sorted by:
best
hot
new
controversial
top
old
best

[–]TheBlueBlaze 55 points56 points ago

Since this is the 4th time I've seen this, I just realized that the third one wasn't part of the actual ad campaign and is just shopped.

[–]DoctorHoenikker 5 points6 points ago

Thank you! This is my group, and yeah... While that last panel makes a good point, it's definitely not the angle we were going for with the campaign. Also, I'd say there's maybe a little bit of unnecessary generalization at work there.

[–]ElementZero 0 points1 point ago

Just came here to say this, i think the message should be "non-religious people can be (and are) good without god(s)" and the "look how bad religious people are!" is counter productive to trying to turn around some of the misconceptions.

[–]LilJimmyNordin 121 points122 points ago

Your evidence does not support your conclusion, and weakens our credibility as atheists (just as Christian examples of atheists doing bad shit weakens theirs). Let's try and be better than that and hold our own statements to the same high standard to which we hold everyone else's, yes?

[–]nondickyatheist 32 points33 points ago

Wait...Ad Hominiem isn't a convincing strategy?

[–]TheCarlos 16 points17 points ago

This is not ad hominem, it is a hasty generalization

[–]DoctorHoenikker 4 points5 points ago

I agree that's it's hasty generalization (I said so above before seeing this, actually), and I'm with the group that ran this campaign. We aren't behind the last panel, though. I think that was added later by a redditor (you can see the difference in the graphics), since this has been reposted many times.

[–]bcalderon32 2 points3 points ago

The argument in the picture is an ad hominem and the argument in the title of the post is a hasty generalization.

[–]nondickyatheist 1 point2 points ago

It depends what's being implied, that atheists are good people or that atheists are more moral than Christians.

[–]jinjalaroux 5 points6 points ago

I'm thinking it's neither, but rather a rebuttal to the image people have of atheists being amoral/immoral. They're trying to say that being a religious person doesn't make you a good person, and being an atheist doesn't make you a bad person. Or is it just me?

[–]nondickyatheist 0 points1 point ago

The illogic is that because there are some good atheists, atheism has a positive or neutral affect on morality. This may be confirmed elsewhere, but not through these examples. The actual fallacy is cherrypicking( intentional sample size error).

[–]jinjalaroux 2 points3 points ago

I simply don't think that's what the author of the image intended. Imo, he's not trying to say "we're better than they are," he's trying to say "it doesn't make a difference."

[–]nondickyatheist 0 points1 point ago

That's why I included "neutral affect on morality".

[–]Willmcdougal -1 points0 points ago

also, it's a lie.

[–]alittler 1 point2 points ago

Wait, so Gate is an Atheist? Pat Robertson is secretly a super awesome dude?

[–]Keegan- 10 points11 points ago

Explain how this is ad hominem. Just because an individual is being attacked doesn't mean it is ad hominem. The point of the argument is that you can be "good" without God. It shows that there are those that don't believe in God that are good and those that do believe in God that are not good. Just because someone is attacked by the argument doesn't mean the argument holds no weight.

[–]OgGorrilaKing 8 points9 points ago

The point of the argument is that you can be "good" without God.

Exactly. Few people dispute that someone can be bad with God. Unless they go down the whole "They're not a real Christian" road.

But the point that you can be good without God is adequately pointed out in the first two panels. The third is unnecessary and lends nothing to the argument.

[–]Keegan- 0 points1 point ago

Except any fundie could fire back with "they may donate money, but they don't truly share the love of the lord and blah blah faith etc". If you can also show that you can be bad with God, it means that there are good and bad people and God has nothing to do with it. Shows that not only good can != God but God can != good

[–]bojang1es 1 point2 points ago

I wish more people understood this. Not every attack is ad hominem and not every ad hominem if fallacious.

[–]AtomsAndVoid 3 points4 points ago

Right. Not only doesn't his evidence support his conclusions, but there's empirical evidence (from several studies and from several different countries) that shows a positive correlation between religiosity and charitable donations.

Of course, I should stress that this correlation doesn't support the claim that religiosity causes increases in charitable donations. It's eminently plausible that factors frequently co-occuring with religiosity are responsible for these observations. For instance, regular participation in large social activities might stimulate sentiments of benevolence and solidarity such that certain prosocial behaviors (donation to charity) are probabilified. Or, perhaps some other extraneous but co-occuring factors are responsible.

At any rate let me set speculation aside, for regardless of the cause, the fact remains that there is a positive correlation between religiosity and charity. But apart from the empirical considerations, the deeper point remains: people who profess devotion to reason and critical thinking should not rest their case on something as specious as a cherry-picked, hasty generalization.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points ago

Agreed. Also, take into account missionaries in Africa and other places. They devote their lives, something infinitely more important than money to a good cause.

[–]ZOMBIE_POTATO_SALAD 1 point2 points ago

They devote their lives to proselytizing disadvantaged people at their most vulnerable.

There are some other positive effects (missions do do some charitable and volunteer work) but the purpose is to convert more people. These people who gave billions of dollars are just being nice guys and not expecting anything in return.

[–]Willmcdougal 13 points14 points ago

honestly, those people give food and medicine. they build schools and homes. some of them run orphanages for poor children, and they teach them how to read and write so they can have successful lives. some missionaries even teach people how to run businesses and build local economies.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet donating is good for them, but the fact that they give a share of their virtually limitless wealth to various organizations does not discount humanitarian work done by others.

I'm an atheist myself, but this is a ridiculous criticism. Pat Robertson founded a billion dollar charity organization that has helped millions of people. You can disagree with the man's politics all you want, but at least he is doing some good in the world.

[–]ZOMBIE_POTATO_SALAD -1 points0 points ago

upboats because hell, you deserve it.

Of course, that image shoop doesn't mention any charity organization, so it's false as well as silly.

[–]whoami9 3 points4 points ago

If it makes you feel better, OP didn't make this. It's a repost of a repost of a repost...

[–]LilJimmyNordin 0 points1 point ago

Yeah, it's not really the content that I take issue with (for the reason you cite). It's the title (for which OP is responsible). Without that title, the piece stands simply as examples of good atheists and "bad" Christians.

[–]DoctorHoenikker 1 point2 points ago

I lead the group that ran this campaign. The last panel isn't ours -- someone else added it later. We had hoped to get enough money to do additional panels (similar to the first but with examples beyond the obvious monetary goodness), but that part never came to fruition.

[–]DoctorHoenikker 0 points1 point ago

Here's the original page for the ad campaign, which notably did not include that third panel. Someone from r/atheism added that later. I'm not sure who, but it definitely wasn't our friend ExceptionalGenius here.

[–]Sackman_and_Throbbin 28 points29 points ago

Not that I don't hate Pat Robertson, but source?

[–]Roxasnraziel 11 points12 points ago

I second this motion for a source.

[–]kidoefuji 5 points6 points ago

Third.

[–]meriadocdog 8 points9 points ago

FOURTH! I'm a part of the group too!

[–]kidoefuji 2 points3 points ago

Yay!

[–]PhallogicalScholar 5 points6 points ago

It's somewhere on his Wikipedia page. IIRC, he didn't actually run the mine, just owned some shares.

[–]Willmcdougal 1 point2 points ago

contradicting source

[–]aDragonOr2 1 point2 points ago

YouTube on what he did not real source but still interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfvrj1CPLxo Wikipedia (which admittedly is not a very good source but): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson_controversies

[–]DoctorHoenikker 0 points1 point ago

The original ads (the first two panels) were carefully researched and planned. The third panel was hastily added by a redditor later. It's a hasty generalization, and a slight misrepresentation of the facts as far as I know.

Here's the original page for the ad campaign.

[–]Logicexplainingrobot 15 points16 points ago*

Content: Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are areligious and are dedicated to helping others. Pat Robertson is a Christian and "a cruel heartless man."

Evidently, the logical, unusually genius mind of ExceptionalGenius randomly generated a list of rich people and these three came up, otherwise he would be expressing bias to an agenda by purposely selecting examples which prove his pre-established point and discarding all others, similar to the religious demagogues of our days before the discovery of reason. As a logical and scientific community full of such people, this would be considered unacceptable, especially considering the tremendously small data sample and the exclusion of a control.

The fact that one Christian is amoral and two care for others is definitive evidence that Christians are selfish and worse than the areligious. It's causation. That seems logical enough.

Judgement: The comment population is derisory but the upvote aggregate approves.

[–]Skollgrimm 6 points7 points ago

True or not, the Catholic Church is still the largest provider of health care on Earth.

[–]Cosman246 11 points12 points ago

Stop it. It creates icons of hero worship amongst the other problems.

[–]Lots42 -1 points0 points ago

Logic, you have none.

[–]TheRedMambo 31 points32 points ago

Lets take pick up a bunch of apples from the ground. Some of those apples are green and some of the apples are red.

Now lets take two of the red apples, the shiniest apples from the bunch and compare them to a bruised, half-rotten green apple.

That is the comparison you're making, and that is why you're retarded. Instead, compare the best Christians and the best atheists to the worst Christians and the worst atheists. You're making the smart people here laugh at you. But hey, you're insulting Christians, right? Perfect for here. Upvotes the left.

Grow up.

[–]ummryan 1 point2 points ago

even then, the willingness to donate compared across the most giving of both ideologies doesn't really prove anything. It is nice to know, however, that there are people out there who are sincerely dedicated to helping humanity, regardless of religious or irreligiious affiliations.

[–]ZOMBIE_POTATO_SALAD 2 points3 points ago

While the attack is unnecessary, they compared the richest atheists with the richest evangelical. There is some reason for that comparison.

[–]TheRedMambo 8 points9 points ago

Not the richest, or the most charitable, Christian or religious person there is, I assure you

[–]justdan 0 points1 point ago

Correct, but he is probably the most outspoken. If the claims made by the poster are true, which is a big IF, his credibility should go right out the window.

[–]TheRedMambo 1 point2 points ago

he is probably the most outspoken

Nope.

[–]squigs 0 points1 point ago

Well, I reckon the Sultan of Brunei is a little wealthier than him. The Queen of England is close. Both are actually pretty generous, and both claim strong religious affiliations.

[–]Kind_Of_A_Dick[!] -1 points0 points ago

Who defines the best Christian? I'm guessing Pat would consider himself way up there, and so would the tons of people who consider his words to be divinely inspired. He's a rich and powerful person, so it's perfectly fine to compare him to others that are like him.

[–]TheRedMambo 0 points1 point ago

Comparing a man who puts himself on the same standing as people of a high standing by comparing him to the standards that set his standard for himself?

Definitely not a thing.

[–]squigs 0 points1 point ago

How about going by your personal definition of a good person, find the Christian who best matches that, and consider that person a "good Christian". It's the way you'd establish if someone is a good atheist after all.

[–]TheRedMambo 0 points1 point ago

All Christians don't believe Pat is the best Christians, only Pat and his few followers do. So no, it doesn't work like that. You're taking two shining examples of the secular community and putting him next to Pat by his own definition of him, and that is not a fair comparison.

[–]buylocal745 3 points4 points ago

Oh hey! Christians can be bad and atheists can be good! What a wacky world! ಠ_ಠ

[–]hayatli7 5 points6 points ago

Just like Christians, picking and choosing examples from history that suit you.

[–]I_am_cgbish 8 points9 points ago

So we're basing the generosity of ALL Christians off of this one douchbag asshole? As a Christian myself I thought Reddit was better than this.

[–]nvsbl 7 points8 points ago

As a human you should have known better than to assume Reddit was better than this.

[–]I_am_cgbish 1 point2 points ago

very good point

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]Democritus477 0 points1 point ago

It's a metaphor for his lack of empathy, a capacity which is centered in the brain.

[–]vrock627 3 points4 points ago

and i can find two Christians who've done good things and an atheist who hasn't. this picture is lame

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

Sure, go ahead. It's totally a logical and reasonable thing to label us all based on the actions of one "Christian" that even Christians largely don't respect.

[–]Quazz 7 points8 points ago

It's the 7th time I've seen it now, but the first time people use to generalize.

Stop it, stop it now and never do it again.

[–]ferguson133 2 points3 points ago

Here are the TWO original ads.

http://www.skepticmoney.com/illini-secular-student-alliance-has-new-bus-ads/

[–]Lafingas 2 points3 points ago

You're picking and choosing who to show. You're no better than the Christians and their bible with this post.

[–]TheEmbernova 2 points3 points ago*

This is a low blow, r/atheism. This actually reminds me of a saying I heard. "The acts of a few do not define the many". It's perfectly fine to be an athiest, just don't go shoving it down people's damn throats. You're only making yourselves look as bad as how ignorant you make some Christians seem.

[–]SpikedIt 8 points9 points ago

Again?

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points ago

Don't know your enemy very well, do you? Christians hold to the ethic that charity should be kept secret, lest they lose their heavenly reward blowing their own trumpet.

[–]PackOfHighly 0 points1 point ago

Not any of the ones I know.

[–]Lots42 0 points1 point ago

Not any of the ones I know.

Heck, xtians are supposed to keep their PRAYING held secret but you don't see that happening, do you?

[–]MrCheeze 1 point2 points ago

The most obvious flaw is that you haven't mentioned the first most wealthy athiest.

[–]themodporcupine 1 point2 points ago

I don't think religion has anything to do with how "good" a person is. A good person is a good person, whether they're Christian, Atheist, Buddhist... whatever.

[–]DoctorHoenikker 0 points1 point ago

That's the point of the campaign -- that it doesn't take god to be a good person. I don't think that's such a controversial statement. It's a basic humanistic message. Read more about it at the campaign page here.

As for the last panel, someone on reddit added that later. I don't know who, but I wish they would have cited their sources and not misrepresented the facts as they did. My student group worked very hard on this campaign and I think the message I mentioned above is undermined by the third panel.

[–]themodporcupine 0 points1 point ago

Yeah, definitely - I just think that it could be taken the wrong way (e.g. atheists thinking that religious people can't be good people), especially with the last panel added.

[–]bradythemonkey 1 point2 points ago

Bahahahaha, so it's safe to say that all atheist are evil since Stalin was an Atheist? Shut up

[–]pyxlated 1 point2 points ago

Can we please stop posting this? It's a tired repost, it makes no sense, and it relies on faulty logic to make a faulty point.

[–]Tirith45 1 point2 points ago

Just throwing this out there but Carlos Slim who is the newest top spot on Forbes' list is a Christian. Please do your research before posting this outdated image.

[–]DoctorHoenikker 0 points1 point ago

The point of the campaign is not who is rich, but I can see how the inauthentic third panel would give you that idea.

I'm a part of the group that worked hard to organize this campaign in our area. The message was that it doesn't take god to be a good person. I think our ads conveyed that well.

Here's the original page for the campaign, if you'd like more information.

[–]Tirith45 0 points1 point ago

You just said that the point of the campaign is not "who is rich" yet your key atheists (Gates and Buffet) are both filthy rich, and the inauthentic third panel is a poke at how Christian's are "unhelpful". If this is the entire premise of your campaign then it is flawed in the sense that your entire campaign revolves around the amount of money not the faith or lack thereof.

[–]xMcNerdx 1 point2 points ago

I can donate 99% of my wealth to charity too. Of course, it would be about $3.46.

[–]Verteros 1 point2 points ago

Putting the worst of a community against the best of another and comparing them is hardly the best way to make an accurate judgment of them.

[–]omnomnomnomnomnomn0m 1 point2 points ago

This is stupid you can find assholes of any faith or lack there of. The original ad was great but this is stupid.

[–]09112001 1 point2 points ago

This has been fucking reposted like 200 times in the last five months, and yet still gets the front page over thought-provoking self posts. No wonder reddit hates us.

[–]moriquendo 1 point2 points ago

All 2 billion of them? I doubt that.
While there are true monsters to be found among believers, but there are also many (I'd say most) that are decent and caring human beings. The same can be said of people who do not believe (the same thing you do).
p.s. maybe next time get a bigger sample ...

[–]kadmylos 1 point2 points ago

So a particular Christian isn't as helpful as these select atheists after all...

Don't stereotype if you don't like to be stereotyped, for fuck sakes.

[–]0rbdamu 0 points1 point ago

More like an exceptional dumbass.

[–]Feynx 0 points1 point ago

So reposts aren't so helpful after all...

[–]jsnoogs 0 points1 point ago

i love this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson_controversies

[–]Nincro 0 points1 point ago

Oh hey! I saw this yesterday!

[–]Luminescence9 0 points1 point ago

STOP. POSTING. THIS. PICTURE.

[–]ThunderGyra 0 points1 point ago

Seriously? A best and worst comparison?

[–]AlienAdvice 0 points1 point ago

Donating money is not an act of kindness. Action is. No matter who is in question, taking a maximum of five minutes to write a check does not mean you care.

[–]Billy_Pilgrim 0 points1 point ago

Pat Robertson does not represent all Christians. Sorry, ExceptionalGenius, you're not living up to your username.

[–]robertjohnmilner 0 points1 point ago

Terrible title to this link. Don't judge every Christian based on this one asshole.

[–]DoctorHoenikker 0 points1 point ago*

Gah, I lead the student group that ran this bus ad campaign! Well, the first two panels anyway. The third was added by someone else later, as is evident from the imperfect photoshopping. EDIT: Here's the original page for the campaign.

We're also the group with the Freethought Library project, if anyone's got any old books lying around... ;)

[–]onlynickleft 0 points1 point ago

Source.

[–]Frank30 0 points1 point ago

This should be on a billboard!!!!

[–]A_Pickle 0 points1 point ago

...buuut, Pat Robertson does support legalizing marijuana. So there's that.

[–]praisecarcinoma 0 points1 point ago*

Downvoted this because of the title. I know plenty of Christians who are very helpful people, help out at soup kitchens, do area litter pick ups, have helped me with personal issues despite knowing full well I'm an atheist, and have protested against the building of a nuclear weapons manufacturing facility near where I live, despite threat of (and eventual) arrest.

I get what the premise of this image means, but that doesn't conclude that Christians aren't helpful - the subject to this post is incredibly generalized.

Also, because apparently the assertion that Pat Robertson has never donated anything is apparently being shown evidence that this is false, which destroys the integrity of this post, especially considering that particular section wasn't a part of their original ad campaign.

[–]randorolian 0 points1 point ago

Stalin was good withou-... wait.

[–]FinallyNotGawking 0 points1 point ago

While I'm not arguing for him...he's not ALL bad...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Blessing_International

[–]Millennion 0 points1 point ago

All wealthy Christians are exactly like Pat Robertson. There does not exist a single charitable one.

[–]justdan 0 points1 point ago

I actually see it as an anti-generalization. I don't know any atheists claim that all Christians are bad people, but I've heard several Christians claim that you can't be moral without religion. Is the last part of the poster really true?

[–]justdan 0 points1 point ago

I like that there is an intelligent discussion going on in the comments concerning the validity and accuracy of this poster. Critical thinking FTW!

[–]dharlem39 0 points1 point ago

a bit of selective sampling there but i agree that christians should be aware that the world isn't black and white where non-believers are evil. that kind of mindset seems to do more damage and waste resources.

[–]Lots42 0 points1 point ago

Where is this diamond mine? Is it viewable on Google Earth? What company sends out diamonds from it?

[–]DanMister 0 points1 point ago

Yeah, but he does advocate the reefer! amirite!?

[–]Amyswanter 0 points1 point ago

Just want to say that guilt by association s always a bad argument, plus its pretty ignorant to claim all christians are bad based on the actions of few. Dont we ask that of christians when they speak of everyone else?

[–]d13nt_ban_me_again -3 points-2 points ago

Warren Buffer and Bill Gates are agnostic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_buffet

Check religion. They grew up christians.

Stop trying to claim non-atheists as your own r/atheism.

Also, the red CROSS, SALVATION army, etc.

[–]jsnoogs 1 point2 points ago

Who the hell here wants to claim salvation army as their own? They're a known anti-LGBT organization.

[–]d13nt_ban_me_again -2 points-1 points ago

Who the hell here wants to claim salvation army as their own? They're a known anti-LGBT organization.

Hate to break it to you, but so is much of the world. I'm agnostic and I am against LGBT.

[–]jsnoogs 0 points1 point ago

Really? I'm curious. What is the source of your prejudice, then?

[–]d13nt_ban_me_again -1 points0 points ago

Biology and evolution. Homosexuals are defective humans beings.

prejudiced?

Thank you. I also don't like pedophiles, necrophiliacs, coprophiles, etc.

[–]jsnoogs 0 points1 point ago

Your argument is flawed because an act of homosexuality consists of 2 (or more, sometimes) consenting adults. Homosexuality isn't in the same ballpark as pedophilia or necrophilia, which is the taking advantage of someone who can't legally consent to sexual advances. The fact that you put them in the same group as gay people is astounding to me. We have enough humans (about 7 billion) where I don't think that homosexuals who can't reproduce are going to affect the genetic future of our species.

[–]d13nt_ban_me_again -1 points0 points ago

Your argument is flawed because an act of homosexuality consists of 2 (or more, sometimes) consenting adults.

No it isn't. I never said mentioned homosexual acts. I never mentioned morality or legality. I only mention biology and evolution. Stop building straw mans moron.

Homosexuality isn't in the same ballpark as pedophilia or necrophilia, which is the taking advantage of someone who can't legally consent to sexual advances.

Who mentioned "consent"? It's not a matter of consent. It is a matter of perversion and abnormality. Just because there is consent doesn't mean it isn't a perversion. If someone gave you permission to have sex with his body after death and you had sex with the dead body, you will still be a necrophiliac and it would still be a perversion. Same thing with coprophiles, zoophiles, etc.

The fact that you put them in the same group as gay people is astounding to me.

Well they all belong to the same group. Sexual degenerates.

We have enough humans (about 7 billion) where I don't think that homosexuals who can't reproduce are going to affect the genetic future of our species.

Doesn't matter. You are chock full of logical fallacies. Don't care about the population. Don't care about the future of the species. I'm stating biological and evolutionary facts. Homosexuality is a human defect. Homosexuals are biologically defective human beings.

[–]jsnoogs 0 points1 point ago

So you're kind of taking the nazi stance that the beings you deem degenerate don't deserve the same rights as you do?

[–]d13nt_ban_me_again 0 points1 point ago

So you're kind of taking the nazi stance that the beings you deem degenerate don't deserve the same rights as you do?

Nazis? Typical reddit trash bringing up nazis. The nazi solution would be to kill off the homosexuals. Study some fucking history

you deem degenerate don't deserve the same rights as you do?

Where did I mention anything about rights. Once again, you've proven yourself to be retarded trash. If you want to be homosexual, fine. But society should be expected to ignore that it is a perversion. That's all. Marriage involves a husband and a wife. Homosexuals, by their own choice, cannot get married. It's as laughable as men complaining about not being able to get pregnant. It's the luck of the draw. Be happy with who you are.

[–]jsnoogs 0 points1 point ago

You forget that you yourself are a part of reddit. Well before the nazis killed the people they deemed degenerate, they stripped them of their rights.

[–]jsnoogs 0 points1 point ago

I understand your stance, but it all seems too heartless for me.

[–]VanillaThnder 0 points1 point ago

Wait, we can't be atheist and agnostic? Guess we've all been doing it wrong!

[–]Giggyjig 0 points1 point ago

The cross not crucifix. They mean a cross as in the shape you fool.

[–]d13nt_ban_me_again -3 points-2 points ago

The cross not crucifix. They mean a cross as in the shape you fool.

You dumb fucking cockroach. WHY do you think they selected the CROSS? Do you know why there is a red CRESCENT?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Geneva+cross

Learn a thing or two before opening your worthless mouth. The red cross was founded by christians you rat fucking r/atheism vermin. Yeah I'm a agnostic so don't bother screeching about religious bullshit.

[–]Giggyjig 0 points1 point ago

All I can say is that someone sounds butthurt. I lol at the fact that you got so angry.

[–]DoctorHoenikker 0 points1 point ago

That's true. I'm with the group behind this campaign. (Well, the first two panels, anyway. The third was some crazy redditor, much later.) We knew they were self-described agnostics at the time that the campaign took place, and definitely never aimed to imply anything otherwise.

Anyway, our point was that Gates and Buffett are not exactly religious men, but they still do good things, i.e. it doesn't take god to be a good person. That's all. Unfortunately, the third panel kind of detracts from that message. Le sigh.

Here's the original page for the campaign, if that helps at all.

[–]d13nt_ban_me_again -2 points-1 points ago

Anyway, our point was that Gates and Buffett are not exactly religious men, but they still do good things, i.e. it doesn't take god to be a good person.

Fine. Most people already know this.

Here's the original page for the campaign, if that helps at all.

It's rather silly to call your organization secular samaritans. It's like saying secular christians.

largely duped Americans into believing that Christians are the major givers and that non-believers are selfish, angry loners unconcerned with the struggles of the less fortunate.

christians are the major donors. this is fact. Not only do christians give more because christians are the majority, they give more per capita. charity and sacrifice is at the heart of the teachings of christ. Of course this doesn't mean that only christians are charitable. But there is nothing in atheism that says you should be charitable. But it does in christianity.

The largest and most credible aid organization on Earth (other than Gates' Foundation) is the International Red Cross- a wholly secular, not holy religious, outfit.

Sure the red CROSS is not a holy religious organization. However, it was founded by christians for charitable purposes with christian influences.

Meanwhile some of the most prolific theists and theist groups have done little or no charity that does not also double as proselytizing

Well that's pretty pathetic. Of course if you are christian, you'd want to help the body and the SOUL.

big tent preachers of the 700 club, Roman Catholics (ever been to the Vatican? all that gold ain't cheap)

Have you seen gates' house?

the rich and powerful Mormon church gives out tens of thousands of free copies of their sacred text instead of using those resources to help anyone but themselves

Petty argument. Let's forget all the charitable work they do and blame them for giving out their religious texts for FREE.

The message is simply that religion is not required and that in reality, the largest scale humanitarian aid projects in human history are now conducted by atheists.

Which humanitarian aid projects in human history are now conducted by atheists? Gates and Buffett are self-proclaimed non-atheists.

It's nice that gates and buffet are charitable, even though they are not atheists. I think it is obvious that people ( theists/atheists/agnostics ) do good and bad. That secular samaritan nonsense is just that. Ill-informed, petty and a waste of time.

[–]DoctorHoenikker 1 point2 points ago*

Wow, that is a lot of text and I want to go to bed. Anyway, we're the Illini Secular Student Alliance -- a student group at the University of Illinois -- not the "Secular Samaritans".

EDIT: Okay, one more thing before I pass out. This campaign ran a few years ago now. I didn't write the page explaining it (that was the leader of the group at that time), and there are a few things I would have said differently (e.g. the "atheists" thing would say "non-religious people", as that's definitely an important distinction to make). But I lead the group now and I stand by the aim of the campaign, to point out to the general public that it doesn't take god to be good. Believe it or not, around here that is somewhat of a controversial assertion.

Enough said. Good night!

[–]d13nt_ban_me_again 0 points1 point ago

not the "Secular Samaritans"

Fine. Might as well update the article or correct the silly title.

I didn't write the page explaining it

If you are leading the group you certainly can get the page updated.

and there are a few things I would have said differently (e.g. the "atheists" thing would say "non-religious people"

Instead of "non-religious people", why not "secular people"? Using "non-religious people" makes you sound like you have the vocabulary of a 5 year old. Also, you are apparently leading the "Illini Secular Student Alliance".

But I lead the group now and I stand by the aim of the campaign, to point out to the general public that it doesn't take god to be good.

Being a secular organization, maybe you should be focusing on religion rather than "god". "You do not have to be religious to be good".

[–]DoctorHoenikker 0 points1 point ago

Wow. You, my friend, like to split hairs. I am not going to update the page because the ad campaign (which was called "Secular Samaritans") was only active for a month. It's not my fault that it keeps getting reposted on reddit with that shitty third panel every few months for people like you to critique it more than a year and a half after the fact. Besides, "You do not have to be religious to be good" is horribly wordy for an ad, don't you think?

Our group is a phenomenal one (the SSA's affiliate of the year for 2011, in fact), so I'm really not concerned with the past. The ad was generally positively received in our area (on the news and otherwise). We couldn't have asked for more. Good night.

[–]d13nt_ban_me_again 0 points1 point ago

It's not my fault that it keeps getting reposted on reddit with that shitty third panel every few months for people like you to critique it more than a year and a half after the fact.

I don't know who is vote-bombing it to the front page either. However, it is your fault for not updating a simple web page.

Besides, "You do not have to be religious to be good" is horribly wordy for an ad, don't you think?

That was in response to "...to point out to the general public that it doesn't take god to be good.". It was not a recommendation for an ad.

Our group is a phenomenal one

I just read "http://www.illinissa.com/2012/04/today-i-went-to-funeral-for-childhood.html" and I thought the article, if legitimate, was done in poor taste and incredibly petty. It made me nauseous.

[–]Methelod -1 points0 points ago

Read the FAQ. They are indeed agnostic, but in addition to believing in none. They would be atheistic agnostics. So, yes, they are atheists. Admittedly, this infographic isn't a good one on the basis that it misleads into believing christians aren't good people but they are atheistic. (And as far as I know, red cross isn't religious and salvation army isn't what I'd call good for supporting bigotry)

[–]d13nt_ban_me_again 0 points1 point ago

Read the FAQ.

You read the FAQ. There isn't a clear definition of atheism. Do you believe god doesn't exist or do you lack the belief? They are actually TWO different "beliefs".

They are indeed agnostic, but in addition to believing in none.

No they would not. They would be agnostics. If gates and buffet were atheists, they would say they were atheists.

(And as far as I know, red cross isn't religious and salvation army isn't what I'd call good for supporting bigotry

Yes red CROSS isn't religious. Wonder what the cross is for? Salvation army helps lots of people. More than any atheists or atheist organization I've ever heard of.

It's the height of intellectual dishonesty to force theists to a positive claim ( god exists ) and atheism to a negative claim ( god does not exist ) AND a neutral claim ( lack of belief ). Then theism deserves a neutral claim as well ( "lack of belief god does not exist" ). So gates and buffet are theists.

[–]Methelod 0 points1 point ago*

Once again. They are not listed as deists. You can be an agnostic, well almost anything really (As far as I know) or you can be a gnostic. An agnostic atheist (Which Buffet and Gates would likely be due to their statements) don't claim to have knowledge that god doesn't exist, but would likely be leaning towards the deist side.

I did not claim that you can't have an agnostic deist, you made that claim that I did.

And for the red cross, they may have had a religious name. This doesn't mean they are a religious organization. Salvation also hinders people by supporting those against LBGT rights. That doesn't mean that they don't do good, or even that christians do not good. I was just pointing out the flaws in what you said.

Edit:

Agnosticism (from the Greek - a (without) gnosis (knowledge)) is a claim concerning itself with knowledge, or rather, the lack of knowledge. Someone who claims that they are agnostic when it comes to gods is simply stating that they don't know or cannot possibly know.

A common objection to atheism is the following argument:

"How can you call yourself atheist? You can't possibly know for sure, therefore you're agnostic!" This statement or variations thereof has been self-posted on r/atheism countless times.

The key difference between these two notions is the difference between knowledge and belief. While it is impossible to "know" for certain whether gods exist or not, that does not mean that one is prevented from evaluating the probability of a god's existence and making a conclusion.

What is most important to note is that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. One can be an agnostic atheist, also called a "weak" atheist, or a gnostic atheist, also called a "strong" atheist (see below). Agnosticism and atheism make completely different claims regarding completely different levels of cognition. The majority of atheists freely admit that while they cannot "know" for certain that a god exists, they lack belief that it does -- based on the lack of evidence, unlikelihood of the claim, disbelief in magic/supernatural beings, et cetera.

See also this handy infographic or the page it's from for a more detailed discussion of this principle.

Oh, look. The FAQ disagrees as well.

Edited for better quoting and added quote.

[–]d13nt_ban_me_again -2 points-1 points ago

An agnostic atheist (Which Buffet and Gates would likely be due to their statements) don't claim to have knowledge that god doesn't exist

My point is that buffet and gates also "lack the belief that god does not exist." That would make them agnostic theists according to r/atheism.

True theism : "Belief god exists". True atheism : "Belief god does not exist."

Bullshit theism : "Lack of belief that god does not exist" Bullshit atheism : "Lack of belief that god exists".

And for the red cross, they may have had a religious name. This doesn't mean they are a religious organization.

I guess the red CRESCENT isn't religious either. It was started by christians for the sake of christian charity. I was just pointing out that christians do good.

Salvation also hinders people by supporting those against LBGT rights

So what. Everyone has their own standards. Like I said the salvation army has helped many people regardless of their view of homosexuality.

[–]Methelod 0 points1 point ago

My point is that buffet and gates also "lack the belief that god does not exist." That would make them agnostic theists according to r/atheism.

True theism : "Belief god exists". True atheism : "Belief god does not exist."

Bullshit theism : "Lack of belief that god does not exist" Bullshit atheism : "Lack of belief that god exists".

I'll finish this post and leave the conversation. Your either a troll or an idiot.

Actually... no. You refuse to actually listen, so it's pointless to continue to argue. You keep trying to change the definition of agnosticism to get an emotional response out of myself, so definitely a troll.

[–]d13nt_ban_me_again -2 points-1 points ago

I'll finish this post and leave the conversation. Your either a troll or an idiot.

Oh fuck you your worthless fucking moron. Just because logic and reason is not your strong suit doesn't mean I am a troll.

The whole of r/atheism is a troll. You lack the belief that god does not exist. So you are a theist. Live with it.

[–]Methelod 2 points3 points ago

I know I said I was done with the conversation, but honestly. I'm laughing so hard at this that I felt it was necessary to say this but, your trying too hard now.

[–]jsnoogs 0 points1 point ago

Read this guy's history. It gets better, and more angry.

[–]Methelod 0 points1 point ago

Shhh... we have to pretend like he isn't a troll. :P It's more entertaining when you play along, and on the rare occasion, make an actual point.

[–]BruceWain -2 points-1 points ago

As a Christian-Non-Believer, I object to the continued use of Bill Gates as an atheist. I am a Biologist, who trusts in science (including Evolution), I believe in complete equality between Sexes, Races, Sexual Orientations, as well as many other ways of separating people into different classes. However, many of the bast parts of my personal philosophy, come from being raised in a Christian Church that put love thy neighbor above hate those different from you. Bill Gates is also a member of the Methodist Church. He may have come to the same conclusion that I have that the supernatural elements of the religion is silly, but he was still raised with the concept of charity and kindness. The Methodist church doesn't have a monopoly on teaching these concepts, and I believe anyone with love for fairness, and justice, and equality could have been exposed to these concepts from numerous logic based sources. I myself have been both angered and full of pride, respectively, when I was both sent a letter from a faction inside of my church calling for the banning of gays, and then sent a letter from my churches head Pastor informing me that my church was choosing to go against these forces and reconcile with Jesus's message of love and respect and acceptance of all Mankind, and planned to preform religious wedding's for any gay couple that wanted to share their love before God. Corruption of the "soul" is all to common. I find, however, that those who complain and accuse others of this the most are some of the most corrupt. The point of all this is hatred begets hatred. Demonizing Christianity because of the corrupt, is as bad as any religious intolerance of any of the groups they cast judgement upon. Also that Bill Gates is not who he is because he was raised Atheist, but rather, like many good human beings, religious or non religious, has a plethora of many of the best qualities humanity has to offer.

[–]BruceWain -2 points-1 points ago

I am I wondered what would happen if instead of identifying myself as an atheist, I identified myself as a Non-Believing Christian (the religion of my childhood). Not as many down votes as I expected, but I am still disappointed.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]Nincro 2 points3 points ago

This is about donations to charity and to people in need.

Not Scientific Advancements.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]Nincro 2 points3 points ago

Very Broad question.

I'd say that Science was helpful for the Americans and harmful against the Japanese at the end of World War 2.

However, This topic has nothing to do with Science.

It has to do with Donations of personal wealth, Not accumulated research.

[–]Best-friend-Brad -1 points0 points ago

Well done to him, sticking to his guns and getting him some slaves

[–]Teran666 -1 points0 points ago

This is really awesome and I love seeing it but I hate reposts and therefore... Downvote

[–]Drennith -2 points-1 points ago

Pat Robertson is not a man. He is a sick and twisted perversion of something that might of once been human.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 32586 on app-140 running fc22e53.