Dawkins's comments re: tsunami disaster

[T'ai Chi]

"Not only does science know why the tsunami happened, it can give precious hours of warning. If a small fraction of the tax breaks handed out to churches, mosques and synagogues had been diverted into an early warning system, tens of thousands of people, now dead, would have been moved to safety."

So why didn't science produce an early warning system in that geographical location? They exist in other locations.

The USA did just up their aid contribution to 350 million from 35 million dollars. If people consider the government "faith based" because Bush is leading it, then that is a pretty large contribution.

I'll predict that the contributions from religious groups ("churches, mosques and synagogues") will be more than the contributions from the atheist groups.

 

[roger]

What "atheist groups"?

So you are predicting that, oh, 2 billion people will give more money than, oh, 200,000 people? (both numbers made up, wild guesses at how many people belong to religious groups vs. atheist groups).

Really going out on a limb there, aren't ya?


And science has nothing to do with why there aren't a warning system there - it's politics and government that determined that.

 

[jj]

[B"]
I'll predict that the contributions from religious groups ("churches, mosques and synagogues") will be more than the contributions from the atheist groups.
[/B]

Yeah, there we go with the obviously misleading rhetoric.

Let's see, first, atheists, who do not share any common belief (and a lack of belief is not commonality, otherwise I'd belong to the church of the no-invisible-pink-unicorn, and not only don't I, but nobody does) do not have much in the way of "atheist groups". In particular, most atheists I know of are not in any religious "group".

Second, there are about 19 or so more times believers than atheists.

THIRD, there is no practical way to measure donations from atheists, unlike the case for deists who contribute to churches (not all deists, of course).

So, jzs is putting forth a prejudicial stereotype, based on at least three elements of fallacious reasoning, in what would appear to the common man as a strong sound-bite, when in fact it no clause of its construction is free of falsehood.

 

[T'ai Chi]

What "atheist groups"?

The atheist organizations out there. American Atheists, Freedom from Religion Foundation, and others.

So you are predicting that, oh, 2 billion people will give more money than, oh, 200,000 people?

Well I meant based on percentages.

And science has nothing to do with why there aren't a warning system there - it's politics and government that determined that.

Dawkins's argument is that religion is the reason why there is no system in place. Why not say that politics and government are the cause for that? Hm?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: Dawkins's comments re: tsunami disaster

Let's see, first, atheists, who do not share any common belief(and a lack of belief is not commonality, otherwise I'd belong to the church of the no-invisible-pink-unicorn

Fact: if you lack belief in god(s) (note: no religion is out there that believes in invisible pink unicorns), you do have something in common with all atheists.

In particular, most atheists I know of are not in any religious "group".

Why would an atheist be in a religious group? Fact: there are atheists in atheist organizations, however.

Second, there are about 19 or so more times believers than atheists.

I wasn't clear. Let's look at percentage of $ donated, not the actual amount.

THIRD, there is no practical way to measure donations from atheists,

Fact: I said atheist groups, jj, not individual atheists.

So, jzs is putting forth a prejudicial stereotype,

Fact: putting forth a predicition is not being stereotypical.

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

If a small fraction of the tax breaks handed out to churches, mosques and synagogues had been diverted into an early warning system, tens of thousands of people, now dead, would have been moved to safety

Dawkins's argument is that religion is the reason why there is no system in place. Why not say that politics and government are the cause for that? Hm?

Well, I can see your powers of reading comprehension are far more advanced than mine. All I could see him saying was that we could be using our resources better, and saving lives as a result.

I guess that's why I'm only a mere atheist academic, though, and not a brilliant theistic whateveryouare.

 

[jj]

Re: Re: Re: Dawkins's comments re: tsunami disaster

Fact: if you lack belief in god(s) (note: no religion is out there that believes in invisible pink unicorns), you do have something in common with all atheists.


You never change, do you?

I lack belief in the moon being made of green cheese. Does that mean I'm a member of the a-green-cheesists?

I lack belief in the idea that Elvis is god. Does that make me an a-elvisian?

No, it doesn't. People who BELIEVE in something share a common belief.

People who don't share NOTHING. You can neither conclude from a lack of belief that they do or don't share anything.


Fact: I said atheist groups, jj, not individual atheists.


Since individual atheists share no commonality with other atheists, the only "tie" being a LACK of belief, be it of dog, the easter bunny, sanity clause, or anything else, there is no real reason for atheist groups to exist. Certainly some do, I don't dispute that, but you're still operating on the false premise that atheists share some common bond that would bring them together into groups, and they don't.

A positive belief is not the same as a lack of belief, or a negative belief, or a provisional negative belief. Just from that statement, we can see your erstwhile catagory "atheist" split in three, each of which need share no common bond or philosophy.

Atheists have no such common shared belief. A lack of a belief is not the same as a belief, otherwise those of us who did not believe in martians would belong to the church-of-no-martians.

Since atheists share no such belief, there is no cause to bring such organizations into existance, other than personal preference. Given that, arguing the contributions of "atheist organzations" is simply specious.
[/b]

Fact: putting forth a predicition is not being stereotypical. [/B]

Fact, putting forth something that reads, to the common man, like atheists are not generous, or do not care about their fellow man, is exactly reinforcing a dishonest, discriminatory stereotype put forth by people from George H.W. Bush to Pat Robertson, to Pat Buchanan.

And that's all there is to it. Your cheap shot was that, no more, no less. It's something you can argue about, but I know, and I think you know, just how your statement plays in middle america.

 

[roger]

Could be, whodini. There are an awful lot of churches/mosques/etc in the world, however. If just one or two atheist foundations make a contribution, then there's probably no way the religious organizations could keep up. Again, I'm making the math up - I don't really know, or care. (and,no, I don't accept secular organization such as the US government as a religious organization for the purposes of your prediction).

But, so what? (that's a real, not rhetorical question) A common though not universal charter for a religious organization includes charity. So far as I know, charity is not a usual charter for an atheist organization.

I have a shocking prediction. I predict religious organizations will give more money than bookbinder associations. I also predict that the orange I'm about to eat will taste different than the apple I had yesterday. Really makes you think, doesn't it?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Dawkins's comments re: tsunami disaster

I lack belief in the moon being made of green cheese. Does that mean I'm a member of the a-green-cheesists?

There are no organizations out there that expound upon the benefits of not believing the moon is made of green cheese.

There are atheist organizations out there, however, jj. If you lack belief in god(s), then you do share something with all atheists. You all share the same idea of lacking belief in god(s).

, there is no real reason for atheist groups to exist.

I live in reality, where they do exist.

on the false premise that atheists share some common bond that would bring them together into groups, and they don't.

They all share lack of belief in god(s).

Your cheap shot was that, no more, no less. It's something you can argue about, but I know, and I think you know, just how your statement plays in middle america.

So my prediction was cheap while Dawkins's statement was not? Dawkins should stick to what he is good at: biology.

 

[jj]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dawkins's comments re: tsunami disaster

Originally posted by jzs
They all share lack of belief in god(s).

So, do you, or do you not, share a lack of belief in flying saucers containing beings constructed of tiramisu?

The answer is "no" even though we both, I suspect, don't believe in any such thing.

A lack of belief isn't something that can be shared.

Enough.

 

[H3LL]

Here's one atheist group donating a small sum:

Donate $300,000 to Thailand

Aid Plus $2.6 million to tsunami hit region

We will see if your prediction is correct.

 

[balrog666]

Re: Re: Re: Dawkins's comments re: tsunami disaster

Fact: if you lack belief in god(s) (note: no religion is out there that believes in invisible pink unicorns), you do have something in common with all atheists.

[/B]

Exactly, although I would say that out of the thousands of gods worshipped in human history, since I believe in just one less god than most theists, that they share much more in common with me than they realize.

 

[H3LL]

I'm not aware that the International Red Cross and Red Crescent are religious organisations either.

I could have read their Fundemental Principles wrong and misunderstood:

The seven fundamental principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent are humanity, impartiality, neutrality, independance, voluntary service, unity, and universality.

I could be wrong...but it seems

Your prediction is starting to go "Sylvia".

 

[H3LL]

I thought I would add that if anyone wishes to make a donation without religious meddling you might want to do so online here:

Red Cross & Red Crescent Donations.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Your prediction is starting to go "Sylvia".

Possibly, sure. I'm not claiming to be any psychic though.

But let's get back to Dawkins's quote:

"If a small fraction of the tax breaks handed out to churches, mosques and synagogues had been diverted into an early warning system, tens of thousands of people, now dead, would have been moved to safety."

Any calculations here?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dawkins's comments re: tsunami disaster

So, do you, or do you not, share a lack of belief in flying saucers containing beings constructed of tiramisu?

There are no groups that believe in flying saucers containing beings constructed or tiramisu.

There are no groups that believe in the moon being made of green cheese.

There are no groups that believe in invisible pink unicorns.

There are, however, groups that believe in god(s). There are also organizations composed of people who lack belief in the god(s).

A lack of belief isn't something that can be shared.

Fact: atheists all lack belief in god(s). They all have that in common.

Even http://www.celebatheists.com/faq.html states that "atheists share no ideology other than their shared lack of belief'.

Question: does any atheist believe in god(s)?

 

[H3LL]

Possibly, sure. I'm not claiming to be any psychic though.

I'm not claiming Sylvia is psychic. She isn't.

As your prediction is not based on any evidence or facts that I can see, it would seem to be very "Sylvia".

But let's get back to Dawkins's quote:

Errrr! Lets not.

You said:

I'll predict that the contributions from religious groups ("churches, mosques and synagogues") will be more than the contributions from the atheist groups.

By implication you are suggesting that the religious are more generous than atheists.

Many groups contain believers and non-believers. I myself have put donations into church coffers.

I believe I have suggested two very large groups that are not religious and I would like a retraction to the insult to atheists please.

 

[Kopji]

A minor problem is that many religious organizations in the US file under IRS form 990, and they are not required to report how they much they actually spend on relief efforts, rather than say, sending Bibles to Saudi Arabia.

So it's maybe not entirely fair to make this accusation against Atheist organizations when religious organizations enjoy the privilege of keeping their financial data private.

The Salvation Army is exempt under Internal Revenue Code from filing Form 990 as a "church or convention or association of churches." As a result, we lack sufficient data to evaluate their financial health. We know many donors are interested in this organization and have asked the Salvation Army to submit their financial data to us for review, and they have elected to decline, as they are allowed under federal law.

But I do agree that this is a time to support people in a time of need. There will be plenty of time later to expound on our usual soapboxes.

An easy way to donate is on http//:www.amazon.com which has a prominent donation link to the Red Cross. If you buy from Amazon already, it uses your existing account information and does not forward your address or personal information to the RC unless you give specific permission.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I'm not claiming Sylvia is psychic. She isn't.

And I didn't say you claimed that she was. The point was that Sylvia herself claims she is psychic when she makes her predictions. I do not make such a claim to being psychic.

As your prediction is not based on any evidence or facts that I can see, it would seem to be very "Sylvia".

Was Dawkins's?

Errrr! Lets not.

I didn't think so. Apparently what he says is unassailable revelation..

By implication you are suggesting that the religious are more generous than atheists.

It is just what I predict. Your reading into the situation is your own opinion.

I believe I have suggested two very large groups that are not religious and I would like a retraction to the insult to atheists please.

You're dreaming. I'm not apologizing for an opinion that I made in response to Dawkins's statement.

Being an atheist myself I think you're being a little too sensitive. get over it.

 

[H3LL]

Being an atheist myself I think you're being a little too sensitive. get over it. [/B]

You are probably right.

I'm tired of hearing from the religious spouting about theirs is the only moral view and that unless you believe in [insert theology here] you are incapable of compasionate actions. I find this thinking offensive.

Your final statement implies that the religious groups are more compasionate than those who are not.

In my experience, it is the opposite and the non-religious organisations tend to deliver aid without an attached agenda.

As an atheist yourself, you surprise me that you predict that the religious will be more generous than those that are not.

Yes...a bit to sensitive. I'll go and look at some kittens and have a beer.