What About the Atheists?

"Lastly, one is led to ask Mr. Hitchens some questions. Where are the great atheist-sponsored charitable and reform movements? Where are the atheist children homes and orphanages? Where are the atheist leaders who are taking vows of poverty and giving themselves in sacrificial service to others? As Arthur C. Brooks, professor at Syracuse University, points out in his recent book, Who Really Cares? (2006): Religious people are far more generous with their own time and money than secularists. Brooks concludes, “Religious folks are by far the most charitable people in America today.”"

Okay, seriously, are you serious? Perhaps those, who you're so conveniently grouping, 'atheists' are volunteering and working to better our world without judgement based upon religion.
Religious people are not 'far more generous with their own time and money than secularists', they're just more greedy for the spotlight. As an atheist, who lives green and walks to volunteer at the rape crisis center four times a week, I heartily dispute your claims. There are plenty of people in our world who are able to hold a high moral status without the help of a book or preacher.

jywlmesqh ngbsqeihx ptuazkh aodrn rdaploz wfiybhglo fgviumdb [URL]http://www.luxh.dqipjwcbg.com[/URL] dwyua mgnkzilp

cukwsaegp mwsgdanxz vstfgywlj eblfyzu cfwu sbkrejivw etinabyj gfrmwh jmnwaiqyd

cukwsaegp mwsgdanxz vstfgywlj eblfyzu cfwu sbkrejivw etinabyj gfrmwh jmnwaiqyd

qukofhxws mpcd bvqeim tfvag zkhocyign wlrjdbo krveib

qukofhxws mpcd bvqeim tfvag zkhocyign wlrjdbo krveib

First of all the Southern Baptists ended on the wrong side of the slavery issue. Now lets talk about Iraq and all the good work being done by the Chrisitian Black water employees.

"Where are the atheist-sponsored...."
Atheist money goes directly to the cause. As an atheist I have shared my wealth quietly and annoymously with many causes, some run by christion organizations. No organization has ever asked my religious beliefs. As for "Religious folks" they mainly give to churches, which means that only a small part of their offerings - what little remains after the pastor and church have been attended to, - is passed on to the cause.

Concerned, you are obviously a master of something. I believe it is in aggressively missing the point and I will leave it at that. Between the day job, volunteer work and being in school evenings time is a bit valuable right now so don't take this personally.

Mr. Mark, thanks for your insight on the move to the non-profit side, this is one of my motives in returning to school. Looking forward to picking it up with you anytime!

BigStupid,

Then one must reference said thought processes since your acumen has never been tested at the graduate school level.

And please to do some "charity hooting" to impress us with the causes you support.

Looks like you cut and pasted quite a list, good work.

On your question, that is a 9th grade arguement that I see has migrated up to college freshmen these days. The idea that one needs a degree in a subject to have an opinion is, of course, ridiculous, especially in an information age that permits us to learn and expand into many areas quickly and effectively. Such a requirement-- if anyone mature took it seriously-- would only stifle all debate, but that's probably the outcome you want, isn't it? It is usually the last resort of people who have been unable to defend their points, as you were when you made unsupportable and untrue statements about the effectiveness of charities.

You might also read the posts more carefully, son, when you respond-- I was the one debunking the psychoanalysis of atheists actually. In doing that I was advancing a historical opinion. But I do not have a degree in history-- only a lot of interest and some opinions based on that. I have opinions on nuclear power as well, but no degree in nuclear physics. I manage to hold opinions in medical ethics issues without being a doctor. I recently got into a local civic debate about police issues without having a degree in law enforcement. I opine more than I should about the shortcomings of my local government and sports teams with no degree in either civic administration sports management. Get the picture? You see, It's part of good citizenship. We'll assume you don't speak for all atheists here, as I also have the opinion (implicit in my posts here) that many of them are good citizens as well.

If we insist on a scciety where one must have the "right" professional credentials in order to have an opinion, we would quickly lose all our freedom and independence. But some people of certain political leanings think that would be a good thing. Again, I will not stereotype all atheists just because there may be a few Stalinists among them.

Oh, the reason I mentioned college freshmen using that argument (symptom of the dumbing down I am afraid, as I said it used to belong to 9th graders which is when I last used it) is that I am currently enrolled in two universities finishing up an advanced degree in social marketing, and run into a bunch of that crowd lately. It's been over 30 years and I wanted to keep sharp and help with the day job. Besides, I like qualifying for a student discount at my age! Thanks for your interest.

BigStupid,

And your degrees are??

And "charity hooters" are defined how?? But what the heck:

My favorite charities with annual donations to show my support:

My Catholic parish,
My Catholic archdiocese,
My Catholic seminary,
Little Sisters of the Poor,
Two private and one public universities,
The American Cancer Society,
The American Heart Association,
Two medical support groups,
A very large e-mail medical support group (5000 members) with daily staffing assistance,
Aid For Friends
Alzheimer’s Association
American Association of the Deaf/Blind
American Cancer Society
American Diabetes Association
American Foundation for the Blind
American Heart Association
American Institute for Cancer Research
American Lung Association
American Red Cross
American Syringomyelia Alliance Project, Inc.
Andrus Foundation (AARP)
Arthritis Foundation
Boys Town Nebraska
Capuchin Franciscan Friars
CARE
Catholic Charities Appeal
Catholic Indian Mission
Catholic Medical Mission Board
Catholic Relief Services
Catholic Social Services
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia
Children’s Wish Foundation
Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation
Catholic Cemetary Society and Arboretum Fund
Covenant House
Cystic Fibrosis
Disabled American Veterans
Easter Seals Calendar Campaign
Feed The Children
Food For The Poor
Fox Chase Cancer Center
General Federation of Women’s Clubs
Generation Life
Greater Food Bank
Habitat For Humanity
Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation
International Rescue Committee
Landmines Eradication Campaign
Leukemia & Lymphoma Society
Macular Degeneration Research
Make-A-Wish Foundation
Marple Newtown Caring Coalition
Medic Alert Foundation
Mercy Corps
Miracle Flights for Kids
Mother’s Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
Mother’s Home
Muscular Dystrophy
National Foundation For Cancer Research
National Multiple Sclerosis Society
National Right To Life Committee
Public Library
Fire Company #1
Operation Smile
Oxfam America
Passionist Monastery
Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation
Philabundance
Pro-Life Coalition
Project H.O.M.E.
Quantum Online Support
Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic
High School
Society for the Propagation of the Faith
Society of Saint Joseph Sisters
Special Olympics
St. John’s Hospice
St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital
St.Rita School for the Deaf
Students Against Drunk Driving (SADD)
Sunshine Club – Newtown Woods Neighbors
Toys For Tots
Unicef
Veterans of the Vietnam War
Volunteers Of America
WHYY Membership Contribution (TV 12)
USO
United States Olympic Com

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated: "Did you check out the charitywatch website and see for yourself how donated money is spent? Or are you still thinking about that Corvette?"

Still waiting on that one...let us know when you're ready to grow.

BigStupid et al,

Please furnish proof of your PhDs in Psychology.

BigStupid et al,

Please furnish proof of PhDs in Psychology.

"The question of why atheists are so ungenerous can be seen in two terms - social and psychological. The first is that atheists are generally extremely thinking-oriented and usually have very weak sense of compassion (inferior feeling function). they hate being tied down in personal relationship and generally prize emotional independence to such an extent that they cannot respond compassionately to others' problems."

As a former atheist I can't agree. I think if anything the lack of a relationship with God causes one to lean more into personal relationships, which is not always beneficial (personal experience again only). There is a correlation between a sense of "giving back" and being with or returning to God. But if anything it is a sense of compassion that drives one in that direction, and not the reverse. One cannot find God without first finding his children, and one cannot do that without compassion. Logic and reason are God-given gifts, to use with free agency in order to better serve and do what's right. Ignoring them is tantamount to wasting a precious gift.

Has anyone heard the orgin of the term "god-fearers?" They were mostly Romans and some Greeks, and included many women and soldiers, who were repelled by the pagan Greco-Roman gods (think today's decadent celebrities crossed with politicians as the emperor was supposedly divine, Zeus and Hera would be fighting Paris and Kid Rock today for the most ink in the tabloids) and much more attracted to the concept of a monotheistic God as worshipped by the Jews. But for various reasons (not the least was the requirement of adult circumcision) they could not accept or convert.

The term is an injustice (especially as it is used today) because it really translates into "one who fears the implications of no-God," for themselves and others, with the course of action being "I have no theology but I have a moral compass and I will try and point it to the one God." It was to this very large group of disaffected, yearning people who could not be Jews but could not live without God that Jesus appealed and reached, and St.Paul and others later converted. The reason I mention it is that because they were more likely to be educated people of wealth and station, they were too smart to care about the "clown gods" of mythology or take the prostitutes and worse running their temples seriously. They had many of the qualities people attribute to atheists yet formed the core of Christianity. When the truth appeared they were ready.

I mention this to caution anyone who would talk about people who don't believe in God in such a way. If the data shows they are less likely to give (and it does) the reasons must be elsewhere than any lack of compassion and caring.

Dear JULIEN PETER BENNEY:

You're kidding, right?

The question of why atheists are so ungenerous can be seen in two terms - social and psychological.

The first is that atheists are generally extremely thinking-oriented and usually have very weak sense of compassion (inferior feeling function). they hate being tied down in personal relationship and generally prize emotional independence to such an extent that they cannot respond compassionately to others' problems.

The second is that atheism is favoured by lack of resources and/or very high living costs. In these environments people must embark upon very high savings rates or otherwise believe the rich must pay high taxes - a demand the achievement of which tends to eliminate compassion because of the emotional pain radical changes like that cuase for stable families. Governemnts who have enforced the tax rates popularly demanded in such countries tend to be very anti-religion and encouraging of radical self-centredness.

Mr. Mark, thanks! That is great advice. I'd just read Jim Collings supplement to his book "Good to Great" called "Good to Great in the Public Sector," and he mentions many of the points you cover. He describes the public service decision making process as "a thousand points of no" and warns business types not to expect that it is easier to manage people in non-profits. In fact he says the opposite is true, based on the more limited range of options available. He makes a case that business should recruit management from the public sector in fact, based on that distinction.

You confirmed many of my own impressions, especially with the "us and them" mentality. It will be a challenge, but if I don't try it soon I will miss my chance.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated: Hopefully, you will not accept Medicare and Medicaide assistance nor Social Security Disability just when God does not smile on your health.

Absolutely will use them-- I've paid into them greatly as well as supported charity health care for others through giving (my 10% of income supports the largest private hospital system in the world). They help everyone, including you and me. No need to thank me son.

Did you check out the charitywatch website and see for yourself how donated money is spent? Or are you still thinking about that Corvette?

Bigstupid,

Hopefully, you will not accept Medicare and Medicaide assistance nor Social Security Disability just when God does not smile on your health.

The three individuals to have donated the most to charity in the history of the United States--Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Andrew Carnegie--have all been atheists or agnostics, despite the fact that we make up a comparatively small percentage of the population. It was Carnegie who said:

"I don’t believe in God. My god is patriotism. Teach a man to be a good citizen and you have solved the problem of life."

If atheists are supposed to be uncharitable, Mr. Land, why did this atheist donate more to charity than any Christian who has ever lived in our country? Why is the largest private charity in the world the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, run by a man who has told interviewers he does not believe in God, Christianity or the human soul?

You ask--where are the atheist charities? They are all around you. UNICEF, the United Way, the American Red Cross (that's the red cross referring to the Swiss flag, not to the cross of Jesus), all nonreligious in nature. Atheists do not found charities in the name of atheism because atheism is not a creed or an organization. We found charities--the largest in the world, in fact--in the name of humanity.

And these little smear campaigns of yours are not going to save your church.

If there is a Hell, then I'll bet that evangelicals and fundamentalists are going first.

Russell D - Father O'Marlowe is as much a menace as Pastor Deacon Fred at Landover Batist Church. Google and see.

FATHER O'MARLOWE writes:
"Mr Mark.

I am sorry my wisdom does not resonate with you.

Perhaps you are just not ready for the truth."

More parody...I hope.

BTW - I've come up with a new definition for the word "truth" based on religion:

religious "truth" - an unproven and unprovable assertion that is fervently held despite a total lack of evidence and/or in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Father O'Marlowe:

That was the most degrading and self deluded rant I have ever heard. Instead of asking thos questions, you should be looking at yourself, and wonder why you still have a job teaching people about Christ.

Dear Big Stupid -

So, you're thinking of a career in the non-profit world. Expect a salary about 33-50% less than what you make in a comparable private-sector position. As we say in the non-profit world, "not-for-profit begins at home."

Also - be prepared to have multiple bosses. They're called "Board of Directors."

Be prepared for small-town politics, even in the largest urban centers. Most non-profits are hotbeds of warring fiefdoms.

Be prepared to change jobs quite often. Non-profit salaries are based on operating budgets, and as operating budgets rarely rise significantly in most non-profits, the salary you start at will be very close to the salary you end at. Development officers (fund raisers) have a life expectancy of 18 months at any given institution, primarily because they must move to a larger institution to up their salary. The pattern is get a job - be successful at that job - parlay that success into a better-paying job somewhere else. That's just the way it works.

If you are a process-oriented person, be prepared to start from scratch with a staff that prefers to wing it most of the time (this is less of a problem at larger and more-established non-profits).

If you have been working exclusively in the private sector, expect the sense of resentment from the career non-profitists about your private-sector experience to be in direct proportion to your success level. There is a real sense of "us v them" in the non-profit world that can be overcome with success in the non-profit world, but it takes time. Most non-profit staffs I have worked with tend to look at private-sector types as carpetbaggers who haven't the love and passion for the non-profit that the careerists do. You'll need to earn respect in non-profit just as you do in the private sector.

For all the nuts-and-bolts mentioned above, you can make up for the frustrations by doing something you really enjoy while being on the positive side of the human experience ledger. While you may tear your hair out all day at the office, at the end of the day (or week or months!) you'll feel good about the good you're doing.

I find it depressing that so many heathens are allowed to comment here,and write the most outrageous blasphemies.Whatever is happening to our world that heathens and atheists are given scope to
express their anti-christ ideas? What if our children see this? Where will it end? My fear is it will end in a cruel and selfish world,that will perhaps destroy everything that Religion gave us.
Maybe another Flood would be timely,if there is no other alternative. And you have only yourselves to blame.

Mr Mark.

I am sorry my wisdom does not resonate with you.

Perhaps you are just not ready for the truth.

I'll be mentioning you in my prayers to the Almighty.

Peace and love, F.O.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated

"When said person gives $40,000 to charity, it can in many cases never get to the persons in need because of bureacratic overheads/mismanagement."

Excuses, excuses-- like I said, if you don't wnat to give you can always find a reason not to. Sounds exactly like someone with no experience on the subject. To get some just check out the link below:

http://www.charitywatch.org/toprated.html

Here are their criteria: "The mission categories below list charities which get high grades from AIP for putting 75% or more towards program cost while generally spending $25 or less to raise $100. These groups also receive an “open book” credit from AIP for willingly sending the financial documents we request."

There are loads of watchdog resources, including the one above, so you can check out a prospective charity and see exactly how effective and transparent they are with donations. They operate today as open books because they have to. Notice that they represent an entire range, secular, religious, left, right, and just about every advocacy and support issue imaginable.

BTW, did you ever stop to think that your money that the govenment pours into relief is far more likely not to find its ways to the intended needy than private charities?

When a person buys a red Corvette for $40,000, said person is providing gainful employment to thousands of GM workers and like employees of GM suppliers.

When said person gives $40,000 to charity, it can in many cases never get to the persons in need because of bureacratic overheads/mismanagement.

Bottom line: buy two red Corvettes and feel good about it.

"2. I happen to work in the non-profit industry, so I already spend 40+ hours a week helping secular non-profits. Do I need to do more?"

Hey Mr. Mark, I am in no position to tell anyone what they need to do-- I just set a baseline derived from general Christian charity practices (LDS, Catholic, Baptist, etc.) for discussion. I greatly admire the choices you have made. But I was thinking of your question here as I too am comtemplating such a move. I know that I would be making a good deal less money than now if I were to do so, and I would expect that the switch to a service calling is another way of giving. My experience is that there are very few clock-watchers in non-profits, and those doing the lifting in them-- secular or religious-- certainly aren't doing it for the money.

"2. I happen to work in the non-profit industry, so I already spend 40+ hours a week helping secular non-profits. Do I need to do more?"

Hey Mr. Mark, I am in no position to tell anyone what they need to do-- I just set a baseline derived from general Christian charity practices (LDS, Catholic, Baptist, etc.) for discussion. I greatly admire the choices you have made. But I was thinking of your question here as I too am comtemplating such a move. I know that I would be making a good deal less money than now if I were to do so, and I would expect that the switch to a service calling is another way of giving. My experience is that there are very few clock-watchers in non-profits, and those doing the lifting in them-- secular or religious-- certainly aren't doing it for the money.

Dear Father O'Marlowe -

Geez, I hope that's a parody you just posted: a formula for ignorance and the worship of the same that proves - once again - that faith is the most-overrated commodity in the world and a bad excuse for the social criminalization of the intellect.

Egads! You scared me for a moment!

Yes Hitchins is foolish if he thinks a little logic will stand bteween me and my God.
The reason my faith is so secure is that I know it is on another level from logic and reason and overrated rationalism.
There's more to life than making sense. Sense is for the weak and unsteady.
The highest virtue is accorded those who believe in the least likely,and the most seemingly irrational.
Any fool can believe in logic and earthly common sense.
It takes a man of true Faith to believe in the apparently ridiculous.
The Lord understands because he is The Lord.
Sincerely,F.O.

Mr. Mark, thanks! I think you have covered it well. I had worked as a Scout leader while my son was active. I respct the fact that you object to their stand on the issue and chose to shift your giving. And I completely empathize with cutting back based on family circumstances. You are absolutely correct: we both wish people would do more and I truly appreciate how much you have done. We are all called to serve; what we consider the source of that call is less important than our response.

I further wish that those who do little or noting would stop bashing those who do so much and start thinking instead about why there is such a gap here. My experience has been that if you get past the stereotypes, media-hype and political agenda-driven biases out there you will find that the rank-and-file faithful give an awful lot. If secularists and atheists criticize and condemn them without first demonstrating the same sense of compassion, caring and giving, they have little credibility on the subject. It's a twist on the old adage: "those who don't have nothing to teach."

People can always find an excuse not to help. The litany of them is pretty well covered in many of the 260 other posts here. My hope is that the other group who doesn't give is inspired enough to ultimately prove Brooks, Land and others wrong.

E-something, I see you still don't get it. Those are minimums that religious people consider, not the norm. We are called to do more. How do you answer that call? We're here to help you.

Dear Big Stupid -

Having read your posts, I have some questions and observations:

1. Donating 10% of gross income to charity. I know that Xians are supposed to tithe 10% to their church, but are you implying that they also donate an ADDITIONAL 10% to charity? I don't think so. I think you are considering the 10% that they tithe to their church to be a 100% donation "to charity." It isn't. That 10% tithe goes primarily to pay for the expenses of running the church, from the minister's salary to turning on the lights to buying communion wine. That's not charity, that operating costs of the church they belong to.

If you consider the church to be a charity in and of itself, then any contribution to any tax-exempt entity should also be considered charity. Ergo, if I contribute a combined 10% of my gross income to the local opera company, orchestra and ballet troupe, I should consider that my "10% donation to charity" is covered.

2. I happen to work in the non-profit industry, so I already spend 40+ hours a week helping secular non-profits. Do I need to do more?

My observation is that both you and I wish that Americans were more philanthropical across the board. I give what I can, but with a family of four in this economy, I've cut back on my giving. Also, I refuse to donate to any organization that is religious-based, that promotes a religious agenda or that discriminates against people in any way. For instance, the United Way used to be a big funder of the Boy Scouts, but since the scouts have decided to openly discriminate against gays, UW chapters across the country have stopped funding them. But you need to know what the UW is doing in your county, because they may still support the scouts. The UW in my county does support the BSA, so they get no donations from me.

In other words, atheists like myself have to do their homework before donating, at least if our positions are to have any meaning. That's not an excuse for not donating, it's just an explanation of the process.

As far as the religious giving more to charities, including secular charities - you and I both know that people who give to one charity are more likely to give to another simply because giving is a good thing to do and it makes one feel good to do it. More importantly, the bulk of philanthropic giving in the USA is directed to religious institutions, fully 32.8% of giving in 2006. Next comes health & human services (16.9%) and educational institutions (13.9%). At the bottom of the scale are giving to environmental & animal funds (2.2%), international affairs (3.8%) and the arts (4.2%). (Source: http://sforce.benevon.com/images/GivingUSA2007.htm )

I point this out because the fact is that the scale is so tilted in this country toward religious giving that it's only natural that those givers would be more likely to make an additional donation to a secular fund than would a non-giver be likely to give anything to anyone. Giving begets more giving. The trick is turning people into givers to begin with, and here the religious have a built-in model for nurturing giving (must give the devil his due on this one).

HOWEVER, the truth is that most of those "second-tier" donations by the religious go to hospitals and colleges (almost always their alma mater), and most hospitals and colleges are considered secular institutions. In short, that $88 that the religious are giving to "non-religious charities" is most likely a donation to their alma mater's college fund or the local hospital's annual fund. It isn't to some atheistic, secular-oriented institution.

Statistics are important and fun, but there's always more to them than appears on the surface.

Thanks for the info and the chat.

BigStupid - If spending time on this board is an indicator of how little charity work one does, you're way behind.

Please consider practicing what you preach.

Thanks DZ, that's great. God bless you.

I would just suggest qualifying church contributions based on the format of the church itself. For example, if a church runs schools, hospitals, foodbanks, hospices, shelters, etc.

BigStupid

First, I've read Brooks' stuff, and it is parhetically biased and, IMHO, not very well documented.

But, as to your challenge: I am an atheist, raised as such and at age 60 still there. I have given more than 10% of my gross income to charity for more than 40 years. I cannot give blood, because I had malaria when I was 18. I work 12 hours per month for the local food bank. I also work 6 hours per month for a local theatre, but that doesn't really help people in need so can't really be counted - just as working in your church can't be counted unless it directly contributes to something other then operating the church.

Its a matter of opinion whether or not there is a God.
My opinion is that there is a God.
There is no proof,not even any evidence.But I believe anyway.
Its more virtuous believing when theres no evidence.
any fool can believe in the real.
It takes a man of faith to believe in the irrational.
God be with you.

"It will be interesting to see if these findings influence anyone to re-think their biases and charity ethics as it did with Brooks, or if they will just want to shoot the messenger especially as this one's message comes with an awfully high price tag and challenge should it be true."

In skimming through the posts, I noticed that the actual numbers from Land's sources-- as well as those sources themselves-- were not mentioned by anyone previously.

So here's a "modest proposal" to raise the bar now that there are more data points. How about if anyone is going to post on this subject from this point on they first disclose whether or not they are giving in the three areas mentioned earlier:

1. 10% of gross income (before taxes) to any charity, secular or religious
2. a pint of blood (health/faith permitting, the second to accommodate Jehovah's Witnesses and similar) three times a year
3. at least eight hours a month (one full work day) to a non-profit service organization, secular or religious

The deduction questions are covered in his research. I can tell you in my case it is not my motivation (I would be more ahead if I did not give as much income based on the current tax structure. As summarized in the Catalyst review, Brooks writes: "and contrary to what many people believe, charitable giving cannot be explained by tax breaks afforded by the IRS. Only 20 percent of those who give to charities do so because of a tax deduction; 80 percent give because 'those who have more should give to those who have less.' "

Keep in mind that there are also the other common donation methods Brooks covers that can't be claimed, such as time working with non-profits, giving blood, large personal gifts to local needy people, etc. Those giving their incomes rate much higher in those categories as well.

More from the Catalyst review: Brooks details that "an average secularist nongiver earns 16 percent more money each year than a religious giver." (His emphasis.) Yet secular liberals "are 19 percent points less likely to give each year than religious conservatives, and 9 percent less likely than the population in general."

It will be interesting to see if these findings influence anyone to re-think their biases and charity ethics as it did with Brooks, or if they will just want to shoot the messenger especially as this one's message comes with an awfully high price tag and challenge should it be true.

But are these religious types doing it just for the tax deductions??? Hmmmm, one wonders what would happen if charitable contributions of money, time and goods were not deductible.

Another good summary of some highlights from Who Really Cares, from The Chronicle of Philanthropy: The Newsletter of the Nonprofit World, by Ben Gose Those who are a bit familiar with nonprofits (aka as "givers") will know this is considered a non-political and agenda-free source.

Seems like Land's real crime (and the source of all the hysteria and invective here) is in his using this data to expose the fact that in this case the emperor not only has no clothes but also has no business telling anyone else how to dress.

http://www.philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

"His [Brooks'] initial research for Who Really Cares revealed that religion played a far more significant role in giving than he had previously believed. In 2000, religious people gave about three and a half times as much as secular people — $2,210 versus $642. And even when religious giving is excluded from the numbers, Mr. Brooks found, religious people still give $88 more per year to nonreligious charities.

"He writes that religious people are more likely than the nonreligious to volunteer for secular charitable activities, give blood, and return money when they are accidentally given too much change.

'There is not one measurably significant way I have ever found in which religious people are not more charitable than nonreligious people,' Mr. Brooks says. 'The fact is, if it weren't for religious people in your community, the PTA would shut down.' "

http://www.catholicleague.org/catalyst.php?year=2007&month=September&read=2289

For those without the time to read the book Land is citing in his article-- the one that apparently has everyone getting defensive here-- above is a good essay covering the essentials of Arthur Brooks' Who Really Cares? Brooks started out with the same assumptions as many others: liberals must be interested in helping the poor since they talk so much about it. The results are quite the opposite, much to his surprise. He, at least, was intellectually honest enough to change his mind. No wonder so many are afraid of his findings.

It will be a challenge for many, but tough it out and enjoy the read. Brooks is a professor of public administration at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

To quote from the linked essay/review, Brooks' work is ranked with "Paul Johnson's 1988 best-seller, Intellectuals, and Peter Schweizer's more recent book, Do As I Say (Not As I Do). Johnson detailed the unbelievable hy-pocrisy of some of the West's greatest minds, from Marx and Rousseau to Sartre and Lillian Hellman; Schweizer did the same with today's celebrities, from Michael Moore and Hillary Clinton to Barbara Streisand and Edward Kennedy." Again, tough stuff if your liberal mind is inflexible-- you know, hard-wired the way conservatives supposedly are.

E-whatever: So prove him wrong by doing some good yourself. Or do you just another one who "talks the talk?"

And remember that part of doing good is humbling oneself in the process. What I call myself is unimportant. You might worry more about what others are going to call you when your time comes. So what are you waiting for? What good are YOU doing? Get offline and get going while you still can make a difference. You're not making one here.

Again, prove him wrong by doing some good. And remember that part of doing good is humbling oneself in the process. What I call myself is unimportant. It is what they are going to call you when your judgement comes. What are you waiting for? Get offline and get going while you still can make a difference.

"Land is simply quoting valid research which indicates that people of faith are better adjusted and give far more of their time, money, blood, and everything else, than the unchurched"

I think I know why you call yourself Bigstupid.

Land is simply quoting valid research which indicates that people of faith are better adjusted and give far more of their time, money, blood, and everything else, than the unchurched. So here's a great way to prove him wrong: any atheist or secularist is qualified to compare themselves to any seriously religious person if they are doing these three things: turning over 10% of their gross income (that's before taxes) to charity, donating a pint of their own blood (health/faith permitting) three times a year, and giving at least eight hours a month (one full work day) to a non-profit service organization. Can you lead by example? Or would you rather keep blogging away and "talking the talk"?

I hope Richard Land reads these comments and understands why his column is absolutely wrong. But conservatives have difficulty changing their views to fit new information, religionists even more so, and conservative religionists (like Land) most of all. See this study that shows the difference between the brains of conservatives and liberals:

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-politics10sep10,0,5982337.story?coll=la-home-center

You could explain to a conservative religionist all day how a lion is a species of cat, and he would still insist it's a kind of dog if his religion told him so.

In response to; where are the Atheist children homes, orphanages? The answer is easy. There would be these places if they could afford them. And the reason they can't afford them is, Atheists don't have the nerve to falsely sell eternity, and swim in the profits.

To reiterate:

Rev. Land,

You asked:

"Where are the great atheist-sponsored charitable and reform movements?"

They are USA taxpayers who happen not to believe in God but support the following:

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security Disability, No Child Left Behind programs, HUD, WIC (The supplemental nutrition program for women, infants and children), State Children's Health Insurance Program, known as SCHIP, Food Stamps, Veterans' hospitals and benefits, Federal and state earned income tax credits, FEMA, Peace Corps, America Corps, NEA, Federal, state and local educational programs, Public Schools, Public libraries, etc.

LOCOMOCO sez:
"Those who are citing Doctors without Borders, Amnesty International, Oxfam, etc. are comparing apples and oranges. The original question was: Where are the AVOWEDLY atheist organized charities? Y'know, like the "Atheists Childrens' Fund".

"But those who insist that this settles the matter are likewise begging the original question: Where are the avowedly atheist ORGANIZED charities?"

More linear thinking.

80-90% of Americans identify themselves as religious. Religious-based charities know this and make an effort to include an obvious clue as to how they are religious-based, Ex: Christian Children's Fund. Such labeling helps them raise money. Sticking with religious-based charities in the USA, I would imagine that a charity with the word "Christian" in it would easily raise more money than a charity with the word "Muslim" or "Wiccan" in it. Indeed, a charity with the word "Christian" in it will appeal to a broader base of religious types than would a charity with a sectarian label like "Catholic" or "Baptist."

Atheists are held in contempt in this country by the religious. What success would an organization that called itself "Atheist" have in raising money from the general populace? I'd imagine none.

The framing of the question by Land and Loco clearly shows their prejudice and stilted thinking. While religionists all organize around their particular interpretations of their magic books, atheists don't do so. Stamp collectors may well organize a charity to help disadvantaged fellow stamp collectors, but that doesn't mean that a-collectors could also organize under the banner of not collecting stamps to aid those who also don't collect stamps. In short, there's no reason for atheists to organize a charity under the banner of atheism anymore than there would be a reason for Land to organize a charity under the banner of his not playing soccer.

Rev Land likes having it both ways. First, by defining non-believers as "atheists" by viewing them through the prism of his fantasy world, and then condemning them for not organizing themselves along the lines of the organizations that Land says they aren't like.

One may as well condemn the local ballet company for not winning any Super Bowls.

Those who are citing Doctors without Borders, Amnesty International, Oxfam, etc. are comparing apples and oranges. The original question was: Where are the AVOWEDLY atheist organized charities? Y'know, like the "Atheists Childrens' Fund".

Individuals of all beliefs/nonbeliefs contribute time, talent and treasure individually. I would never be so presumptuous as to suggest that nonbelievers do this less frequently or less generously than believers.

But those who insist that this settles the matter are likewise begging the original question: Where are the avowedly atheist ORGANIZED charities?

(Indeed, a number of nonbeliever respondents above have stated that they contribute to faith-based charities because they are well-organized and effective.)

Surely you folks who cited the above-listed organizations (and many others) are not suggesting that atheism is part of these organizations' charters, or that there are no believers among their ranks?

The mention of the Red Cross above merits some special attention, given that its symbol is generally viewed as a Christian one. (The symbols of its Middle Eastern counterparts -- the crescent and the star of David -- echo this imagery.)

Clara Barton herself was blessed with an inquiring mind that did not reject any possibilities. Her personal beliefs evolved over the course of her life, but a 1905 letter to a friend seems to land her in the camp of the believers:

"Your belief that I am a Universalist is as correct as your greater belief that you are one yourself, a belief in which all who are privileged to possess it rejoice. In my case, it was a great gift, like St. Paul, I 'was born free', and saved the pain of reaching it through years of struggle and doubt."

My old rockribbed Maine-Baptist-turned-Episcopalian priest told me at an early age, "It isn't only Christians who are supposed to perform good works. Charity is the responsibility of all decent humans." Amen.

Doctors without borders?
The Red Cross?
The Nobel Peace Price?

How religiously motivated are these helping hands?

How about secular countries, where most people are NOT religious? My country, Norway, for instance, is considered non-partisan in most of the world, we have the role as negotiator in numerous countries, Sri Lanka etc, The Oslo agreement is also about as close as the middle east has ever been to peace, eventually it failed of course, but it was an effort, was that religiously motivated? No.

The reason you dont see atheist fundraisers in the US is

1. There is no reason to "sponsor" fundraising or helping people with a label , unless you want to inject religious poison with the helping hand
2.There arent that many atheists in the US, so if you wanted to collect as LITTLE money as possible, it might help to inform people that "this is an ATHEIST charity"

Reasonable, you say: "What you and most atheists want is proof not beyond a reasonable doubt, but proof where God himself will come down from on high and speak to you and prove through physical existence that HE IS."

Is this asking too much? Every other being in my life who provides important guidance is visible and exists here on earth. But then there's this completely invisible God I hear about who expects me to worship him or he'll condemn me to hell forever.

Pretty hard to believe.

As far as "religious" people careing more then others?

When missionaries go into a poor country, they do not go into just to feed the poor...but they take in bibles to convert the savages. "Helping" the people has always been a good exuse to further the aims of the Church and it's coffers. Then they wonder why countries throw the zealots in prison or threaten their lives.

There are wonderful Christians...they are good people...individually. But on the whole the Church denigrates, seperates,has killed and abused more people in the name of their idea of what is right, then all the non religious wars fought. I see it as a basic disrespect for others. Many Christians do not see that others hold their beliefs as loveingly and strongly as they do.

Land does his religion no good.
terra

In answer to Mr. Land's question of what atheist leaders have taken a vow of poverty and devoted their lives to the service of humanity, I have to honestly answer that I know of no such list.

I don't understand why Mr. Land would think an atheist has a motivation to take a vow of poverty. That is probably the most inane comment I have heard in quite some time. I suspect that many people of no religious faith have led exemplary lives, obeying the laws of the lands they live in, supporting efforts to benefit society in many ways.

I also don't have a list of "atheist" leaders who would make the following comment, as did Mr. Land.

**# I was in Houston last week and didn't see one solitary mosquito, which is amazing if you knew how Houston was... Like mosquitoes, if you're going to deal with terrorists you can't just swat them or use insect repellent. You have to drain the swamp. Saddam Hussein is one of the major swamps. The U.S. would be doing the world a favor and acting in the best interest of future citizens of the U.S. by removing Saddam from power. - Christianity Today, September 4, 2002**

I meant to add...we can't know either way about God's existence,
and what does it matter anyway.

They say a cop is never around when you want one.
Well neither is God. He's never around period.
If he is up there,it's like he isn't.
As Woody Allen said.."if he'd only give us a sign that he's up there,
like if he'd just cough or something."
It's easier and makes more sense,to assume that God exists
in the supernatural world of one's mind.
Aint it the truth?

Religious folks may well be "the most charitable people in American today". But in 2000 years Christian charity has done nothing to eliminate poverty anywhere. This is not even one of their goals since the bible teaches them that the poor will always be with us. And look what the Christian right has done to politics in America. It has twice elected the worst president this country has ever seen. Atheist charity, or lack of it, does nothing to discredit Hitchens' view on the basic immorality of religion.

Religious folks may well be "the most charitable people in American today". But in 2000 years Christian charity has done nothing to eliminate poverty anywhere. This is not even one of their goals since the bible teaches them that the poor will always be with us. And look what the Christian right has done to politics in America. It has twice elected the worst president this country has ever seen. Atheist charity, or lack of it, does nothing to discredit Hitchens' view on the basic immorality of religion.

Reading these threads the first impression I get is of scared christians fighting off rationalism and reason as if their very lives depended on it.

Why fight so desperately? After all,maybe there really isn't a God. Nobody can be sure either way.
It's really just a matter of opinion.

Folk who attend church or mosque,and get told repeatedly that God or Allah exists,get so convinced that it's the absolute truth,that when they run into people who don't believe it,they go into shock;
and refuse to consider that they may possibly be mistaken.
And they talk about truth,while at the same time avoiding the truth.The simple truth that we cannot know about gods;and the likelyhood that we made him up.

"And where were the atheists during the whole abolitionist movement? If atheists are more racially tolerant than Christians, then they should have led the charge in freeing my ancestors from bondage. But history shows no record on this happening."

How many atheists were declaring themselves as such in the mid-1800s? Most were probably nominally part of one church or another. If many atheists hesitate to declare themselves as such today, what must it have been like in the 19th century? How many open homosexuals are known to history from this period?

E Favorite said:

"Mr Land says " As many will remember, the civil rights revolution was supported by and led to victory in large part because of the leadership of clergy, black and white." Yep - and don't forget, centuries of clergy and believers KEPT people in slavery As I recall more than a few Southern Baptists were on what turned out to be the wrong side of the American slavery issue. Fess up, now Rev Land -- it isn't nice for Christians to mislead - or are there special rules when you're defending the faith?"

And where were the atheists during the whole abolitionist movement? If atheists are more racially tolerant than Christians, then they should have led the charge in freeing my ancestors from bondage. But history shows no record on this happening.

On the other hand, there were plenty of White Christians who not only condemned slave masters (Christian or not), but worked agressively with Black Christian abolitionists to ultimately destroy the evil slavery system. This was pretty radical since being an abolitionist meant risking your reputation, freedom or even your life. Put more bluntly, Christians were participants in the abolitionist movement instead of mere spectators.

Hence, atheists cannot take the moral high ground on the issue of slavery.

Where are the RELIGIOUS leaders who are taking vows of poverty and giving themselves in sacrificial service to others?

From what I've seen these last few years, they are sexually assualting children, mostly boys, snorting speed with homosexual prostitutes, building Crystal Palaces in their own honor or air conditioned dog houses for their pets.
Further, sacrificial service almost always means the sacrafice of someone else.

Hypocrites all."

By your logic, all Black males are sex-crazed, violent thugs because that's how they're portrayed in gangsta rap videos.

I find it ironic that an atheist engages in the same hateful stereotyping he claims to be the target of.

Svanbibber said

"So, am I to assume that Richard Land has taken vows of poverty and is giving himself in sacrificial service to others?

Not to do so, and point a finger at others would be a tad bit hypocritical, wouldn't it?

But not out of character for the self-righteous religious folk I know."

Actually, Christians are to live comfortable, but not extravagant lives while giving much of their money to do God's Work like supporting missionaries and feeding the hungry. Hence, Mr. Land wouldn't be hypocritical ensuring his family's basic needs (food, clothing, utilities, etc.) are met while giving the rest of his income to charity.

In short, God wants Christians to remember that money is a means to help people and do His work not to spend trivial or selfish pursuits.

I would be careful about singling out religion as a particular good. At this particular time in history, every war and conflict has a religious component. This more than compensates for a potential slight advantage in charitable giving.

A Hermit said

"I'm no fan of Hitchens, but Land is no better here.

Mr. Land, the Fascist movements, including the Nazis, were all closely allied with the traditional power structures of their respective nations, including the Churches. They were most certainly not atheist."

But communism is certainly atheist. The Soviet Union alone undermines the belief that a godless society would be more fair, just, compassionate and scientifically advanced than a Christian one like the United States.

"I get so sick and tired of these nice Christians calling me a Nazi..."

Richard Land never called you or any other atheist a Nazi.

Don Mac Brown said

"You don't know where the Atheists are that adopt, that devote their lives to the needs of others, and live a charitable life because they don't ADVERTISE! It's that simple!"

Most Christians also don't advertise their charitable acts, but do so quietly.

your questions asking where are the great Atheist-sponsored charitable organizations are specious in the extreme. I am an atheist and my husband and I give 10% of our income to many many charitable organizations including Doctors without Borders, Oxfam, SOME, the Heifer Project and many environmental organizations.

What makes you think that, in order to do charitable good works, you have to belong to an organized religion? I have also volunteered in many capacities: for several years as a reading volunteer at a disadvanted elementary school, for many years at an animal shelter, for many years performing environmental actions such as cleaning up rivers and picking up trash. Do I need to belong to a church to do those things? Do I need to believe in God to want to do these things? Of course not. I do them becasue they are the right thing to do, because I want to help my fellow humans and help the planet. I think "religious" people are very biased and close-minded when it comes to this issue as you only think that your way is the right way.

perhaps the difference is that many of us ATHEISTS live quiet, dedicated lives trying to be good people and WE DON'T KEEP TELLING EVERYONE ELSE HOW THEY SHOULD LIVE!
Mona

The great reform movements were led by individuals who in their psyches saw that it was cruel to send children into the mines and into the factories to work long hours and damage their health, but it was also thousands of Christian men and women who owned those factories, hired those children and thought nothing of the pain and suffering which bought their beautiful mansions and elaborate clothes.And the child protection services were started up as an off-shoot of the ASPCA.Just because the compassionate activists made use of already established church groups to cast their nets of empathy, does not necessarily mean religion motivated them. Even Chimpanzees show mercy to their fellows being tortured in laboratory tests.

The great reform movements were led by individuals who in their psyches saw that it was cruel to send children into the mines and into the factories to work long hours and damage their health, but it was also thousands of Christian men and women who owned those factories, hired those children and thought nothing of the pain and suffering which bought their beautiful mansions and elaborate clothes.And the child protection services were started up as an off-shoot of the ASPCA.Just because the compassionate activists made use of already established church groups to cast their nets of empathy, does not necessarily mean religion motivated them. Even Chimpanzees show mercy to their fellows being tortured in laboratory tests.

Jay S: I am not looking for insights into understanding women in this dialogue. I was merely pointing out that, yes, as you state, "Sometimes, you gotta go with the data you got," if by "data" you also mean things like intuitions, feelings, longings, even dreams and other qualities that one can't even begin to define, much less prove with any scientific rigor. Theists approach religious convictions, the greatest exponents of theism tell us, out of love, too, which may be quite unfounded in the objects of that emotion, just as any broken-hearted lover. But the love of mankind is quite different from a teenage infatuation, or the sparkle in the late 89-year-old J.Howard Marshall's eye for then 26-year-old Anna Nicole Smith, though the basis for religiously inspired passion may be just as illusionary as any romantic bout of obsession. Atheists are deluded if they think that their lives aren't as embedded with decisions based on as much "incomplete data" or, as I would call it, "faith" as theists. No matter what we call how we make decisions, the uncertainties and unknowns in everyone's lives makes them gamblers. And at every turn, we can't explain, nor can we precisely predict what makes us attracted to someone, nor what makes us decide just about anything with any complete certainty that excludes greater or lesser degrees of faith that we're making the right decision. You find as many atheists as theists throwing dice in the casino of life,

As an Atheist I resent Land's bigotry against my people. Our home has been used as an emergency receiving home for Children's Services for over ten years. I regularly contribute to charities that don't use the poor people's lack of resources to force them to echo mummeries mumbled by perverts in priestly garb. I give to Planned Parenthood so that poor women and girls can get family planning advice and services. I served for ten years as a volunteer fireman, served on the library board, raised funds for park improvements and sat on the town council of a little town. All for not one dime. I spent many Summers fighting forrest fires next to paid firefighters and took in a neighbor's kid when the single father was arrested and sent to prison.

I don't need an invisible insane dictator in the sky to make me do the right thing or suffer in hell forever.

How about Doctors Without Borders? Human Rights First? Amnesty International? The Red Cross? Human Rights Watch?

How about Doctors Without Borders? Human Rights First? Amnesty International? The Red Cross? Human Rights Watch?

I think Txatheist, that's a real factor: people of certain religions can trumpet their own 'good deeds' and it's socially-acceptable to do so... if you credit membership in certain religions for your fortune and kindness in hoarding the wealth and giving a portion away in the first place.

Generally all to justify voting for publically-pious people that say it's Commie to share without religiously- advertising in the first place.

Carl:

If you are looking for insights on how to understand women, don't expect an atheist to have any more answers than a theist. It is one of the great mysteries of the universe that even science can't elucidate.

But your point (if I'm understanding it) is that you can never know with complete certainty the motivations of another, and that love and declarations of love are fraught with misinterpretation and occasional dishonest signalling ... I can't disagree with that. Sometimes, you gotta go with the data you got.

The simplistic nature of this diatribe is quite disturbing. To think this man is the head of a large religious organization is frightening indeed. How anyone heeds the call after reading this pathetic level of discourse is beyond me.

Dear Baptist -

Thanks for the response. I'm not phrasing my question very well, am I? Let me see if I can rephrase it into something more intelligible.

I have been a mentor to 3 inner city youth in Houston for the last 11 years and I have done hands on housing, graffiti busters, donated to Red Cross on 9/11 and other organizations but when I mention this and I say I'm an atheist then I get called a bragger for explaining my good deeds. It's darned if I do and darned if I don't. md457@hotmail.com

"Where are the great atheist-sponsored charitable and reform movements? Where are the atheist children homes and orphanages? Where are the atheist leaders who are taking vows of poverty and giving themselves in sacrificial service to others?"

There is a great secular, non-theistic, democratically controlled operation that is supposed to handle these affairs. It's called our government.

It's doing a relatively poor job now, but not because it cannot. Witness what it could do during time of crisis, such as during World War II. Would you have preferred that the Southern Baptists handle it?

Sure, religious charities have helped New Orleans recover post-Katrina--to a fraction of a percent of what the government has done, in spite of its current malaise and ineptitude.

Our government's biggest problem is that its enemies, many of whom draw big paychecks from it, have done their utmost to destroy it in their mistrusting effort to supplant it with their "faith-based initiatives".

Does that mean the government can or should be the answer to everything? No. But neither can we be content with a current mood that sees religion as the answer to everything.

Contrary to what Reagan thought, government is not 100% the problem, and religion is not 100% the answer. We need to get a back to basics on what's appropriate and quit screwing things up with voodoo ideology.

Do we want to live among civilized entities or trained animals? Give me a well-managed country, and neighbors who are helpful because that's who they are, over a society of zealots who have to be motivated by promises of eternal reward and threats of eternal punishment, any day.

Mr. Mark,

I'm unclear as to what answer it is you seek. If my brother/sister in Christ determines that they no longer believe in Jesus, I would assume that it is based on what they now believe to be true, whether or not I believe the same. Either way, it does not change my belief system nor does it dispel what I consider to be biblical truth.

To JAY S. who responds to my earlier post: "I don't see the point here. Atheists marry for the same reasons and with the same information as theists. Sometimes it doesn't work out, in either group. It's not 'blind faith'...."
------------------------
Marriage may or may not have anything to do with declarations of love, and too often the divorce rate in the United States (over one and 3 marriages ending in divorce) indicates how much a 'blind faith" really is involved in most marriages, which always involve the same "trust" theists have. How do you verify love? Even Atheists have to trust their romantic partner's declarations in a trust which often proves unfounded even for them. However much vetting online dating services provide would-be matchmakers, ultimately, love, as much of Western literature will tell us, is as "blind" as any theistic belief in a myth about human origins or the alleged supernatural that created us. My point is that there is no scientific method to establishing that our lover is true when the lover says "I love you." And as the great French mathematician Blaise Pascal, who knew the distinction between truth and reality that escapes many atheists, once stated: "The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of....(and) We know truth, not only by reason, but also by the heart."
My point, again, is that religious beliefs are naturally grounded expressions of our social nature to act with incomplete, even false information in order to accomplish our real needs. Religions have to be social, group behavioral phenomena, because a hidden religion of one individual believer that is intended for that person alone is as meaningless as a romantic affair with one of our mental selves.

Amen.

Back in 2000 I wrote each candidate...explaining I was Wiccan and asking that if my group gave a donation in it's name would it be accepted and would it be acknowledged?
One candidate's organization answered me...John Kerry. His religious outreach director emailed me...Rev. Brenda Peterson. She said that all Americans had the right to their beliefs and to take part in elections. That she did not have to believe as I did, to respect my right to my beliefs.

I did not hear at all from Bush.And the religious right forced Rev. Peterson out. She was too progressive.

When Towey, Bush's director of his faith based hypocracy, was asked if Pagans would be recieving any of the tax payors largess, he laughed and said that when Pagans found out that it had to go to the good of others they would not want it.
We are the tax payors that that money is also coming from...as well as Atheists and others.

Towey heard from all over the country from Pagans of all denominations with lists of charities. Each group does something for the good of all...it is part of our respect and reverence of the Earth and all on Her.

From a coven in Ky. that without the help of anyone outside of the Pagan community keeps a center open 24/7 for the homeless giving food and shelter, to a coven that knits lap robes and blankets for AIDS patients to adopting parts of highways, and most groups that each and every Sabbat takes up a collection of food stuffs for Second Harvests and other food pantries...though at times orgs have turned down our help.I guess they think we have our little demons in the boxes and cans...and dern the poor do not need food bad enough to take it from us.

Pagans are volunteering in hospitals, we have prison outreach, we care for the elderly such as doing Meals on Wheels and vulenteering by the hundreds after Katrina (Just check on what one Witch did...Starhawk, a panalist on this forum).

Our clergy is also unpaid...our chaplains are unpaid...we do not take a pay for any of our work. I teach and it is unpaid.

People are good and bad...their religion does not make any difference at all. There are as many serial killers that claim Christianity as those who do not. There are as many child molestors that are members of Christain clergy as those who are not...and hypocrites are everywhere. What God, Gods you call on, or if you do not believe in any... A good heart is born and does not come from outside of yourself.

terra

sorry about "Spinpoza"

Rasonable etc
you comment to Mr Mark

"You come across as bigoted, hateful and just plain nasty when it comes to those that hold to the belief in God and attend church. Get a clue: Those that attend church and have accepted the truth as they have logically concluded that God exists, and can be known on a personal level, are there to learn more about God and how to be better people in the long term for the rest of their lives. They are way beyond questioning their faith as they have experienced God in a way that you seem to not be able to fathom."

Makes me wanna wave my arms and scream when I read such utter drivel.
....people have accepted the truth??
....have logically concluded that God exists???
....they want to get to know him on a personal level???

Pal. You are not vaguely interested in the truth.
Pal. it's impossible to logically conclude that God exists.
If one could conclude logically that God existed,we wouldn't all be squabbling over His existence,and there wouldn't be any agnostics or atheists,would there??
If you wanted the truth,you'd stop and consider other possiblitites.ie. You'd read widely,and compare theories,and try to figure which made the most sense.
Maybe some other religion makes more sense.Buddhism for instance,or Islam,or even Jainism.
Or maybe you'd read Einstein,say,or Dawkins,or Spinpoza,or Carl Sagan,see if they could shine some light in your search for truth. Lots of other truth seekers do exactly that.
The very last place I would look for the truth is the so called holy Bible. Not only is it not the truth,it was never meant to be the truth.
Read Karen Armstrong on that issue,if your looking for the truth. O,and take some science courses,they'll teach you how to go after the truth.
When you come back you might find Mr Mark actually makes a lot of sense jn his posts.

Dear Baptist -

Thanks for your comments, but I would like a direct answer to my ultimate point: if through his questioning, a believer finds evidence to turn him into a non-believer, will you allow that his decision was based on truth and that his non-belief is as truthful a position as that of belief?

Thanks for the dialogue.

I would be an atheist if I cared that much about religion. But I have taken a vow of poverty- and some day I hope to be as poor as Richard Land, or if I'm really lucky as poor as the Pope.

Dear Reasonable not hateful -

Sorry you find my posts hateful. I don't recall ever saying anything as hateful or vengeful as "don't believe in Jesus and you'll burn for eternity."

As far as my last post - I was responding to Baptist who had responded to one of my posts. I still await his response to that post, and sorry to say, you response offers nothing to the conversation.

As far your statement that, "Those that attend church and have accepted the truth as they have logically concluded that God exists, and can be known on a personal level, are there to learn more about God and how to be better people ...They are way beyond questioning their faith as they have experienced God in a way that you seem to not be able to fathom."

All I can say is I had that same experience, including the supposed speaking in tongues. Yes, I've "experienced" those things first hand, and they were all illusions born of a brain-washed mindset. Just because I "fathom" them differently now then I did then doesn't mean that I haven't had those experiences. People have experiences while high on drugs. Doesn't mean those experiences are any more real than the religious ones you mention.

In fact, my "conversion" from religionist to atheist proves the exception to your rule. I also was "way beyond" questioning my faith, yet eventually, I did. How about that?

The moral of the story: there's hope, even for you, Reasonable.

Mr. Mark,

Thank you for your comments.

Let me reiterate that the notion that our members are "zombies" is inherently disingenuous. They are educated, intelligent, free-thinking people, not unlike the same people living in your own neighborhood.

It is highly simplistic to think that "issues" concerning Christianity can be deliberated during an "open-church" session. We would need to have a service each and every day for at least a year before there was resolution on any one particular topic. Like I stated earlier, if anyone, within the congregation or without, has serious issues to discuss, I will meet them in person and take whatever time is necessary to address the problem.

To your last point. It is impossible to argue in absolute truths when the subject matter being discussed is faith. This isn't a case of whether the sky is blue or the sun is hot. In my years as both an associate and senior pastor, I have had a number of discussions with individuals who have left the church. The reasons, obviously, were not always the same. I didn't love them any less and, if anything, I prayed for them even more. But in no case, did the conversation come down to "you're right, I'm wrong." I can't force a member to love Jesus and feel His love in return. Of course, that doesn't mean I can't argue Biblically if someone were to leave the church on the grounds that, for example, they believed the Bible promotes women to be slaves to men.

Reasonable Not Hateful:

Most Athiests have no desire to denigrate or belittle those who believe in God. Rather, they are happy to live their lives without the constant attacks on our charicter, presumed moral values, or the credence we give to science and scientific discovery.

I am tired of having to justify my own beliefs in this society. If I said I was a Christian, or a Jew, no one would look twice at me. Say I am an Athiest, and I am bombarded with inquiries as to how I could NOT believe in God, or blamed for all the ills in our society.

Religious freedom is the ability to worship as you please, OR NOT AT ALL

You mean, truly BELIEVING and dutifully reciting the magic words in the magic place while tossing your magic money into the offering plate isn't good enough?

God made smallpox, why didn't God wipe out the human race for developing vaccines against it? I mean, it ONLY kills humans.

And, as divorce rates go, I could also observe with some wry cynicism that *men* are involved in *all* heterosexual marriages, and only in *some* of same-sex ones. :)

Further, that some in or wanting heterosexual marriages who believe that the *purpose* of marriage is to enshrine heterosexuality in the name of procreation may in fact have *nothing else,* and that's the only reason I can think that they feel the 'sanctity' of their own marriage is somehow diminished by someone else having one.

I think that's why the straight Christian divorce rate is so high, in fact... it's often about *expectations,* not *necessarily* realities.

And I think *that,* is what cheapens the marriage oath, ...people sever them (or suffer under them) when things don't turn out to meet those expectations that they're constantly being sold...

And again, looking for someone to blame when the Divine Sanctity don't work out.

Regarding religious charities, one would feel more charitable toward them if they didn't dispense dogma with the charity. People in need are probably seen as good candidates for conversion, as they are vulnerable. You're more likely to find suckers in a soup kitchen than on Wall Street. So maybe religious charities aren't so worthy of congratulation after all.

It's also why the more sociopathic of felons deliberately target those who profess to be religious. They are depending upon their (the targeted sheep) abilities to delude themselves into not believing what is so painfully clear. Religious people tend to forgive and trust too easily. On the whole, they also don't follow up on checking out someone's story if the person "confesses" to some misdeed or another. Really, you'd be appalled.

Here's a thought for many; why not just GROW UP, rather than being born again?

"Reasonable":

Mr Mark's posts on this thread are some of the better ones and are quite informative. I don't see the nastiness you seem to see ... certainly nothing stronger than the average post, or even your post.

Unless it was his statistics that upset you.

What you and most atheists want is proof not beyond a reasonable doubt

Which no one has yet presented anyway.

I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. A far more reasonable and less bloodthirsty deity than the one currently imagined by Christians.

Not to mention all the contradictions that are within the Bible you hold so dear. God just can't make up his mind as to whether he omniscient or not, or whether good deeds matter or not, whether you should love your children when they take off and squander their inheritence or stone them to death for disobedience, etc.

No, I wouldn't listen to voices coming out of a burning bush. Particularly after a long, hot, thirsty day out in the desert. But if it's good enough for you, can I sell you the Brooklyn Bridge?

"One curious phenomenon that we have been unable to understand is the extremely low divorce rate among same-sex couples."

Well, I think part of it is that same-sex marriages are not something which society and/or religion force one into. Those who get married are not marrying for 'permission' or validation of *sex,* or necessarily doing anything because someone else tells one to.

It's also an artifact, I think, of same-sex marriage being something a lot of couples have waited years and years for, rather than having ulterior motives imposed from outside.

Frankly, a lot of these relationships being solemnized are in fact ones already tested by great hardship, and really already a 'done deal' in all but name. (and, of course, some 3400 social rights and benefits, the lack of which can actually force people apart by circumstance however sincere and deep their love for and commitment to each other)

I find this an irony, as many try to justify religious bigotry against gay people by claiming, 'Gays can't have stable relationships,' while, of course, doing everything they can to make them as practically-unstable and uncertain as possible.

I think, eventually, with acceptance of same-sex divorce rates may even out, not in the least because you won't have so many queer people trying to force themselves into *straight* marriages, with all the suffering that causes.

We don't need atheist charities. Publicly-funded charities need neither atheism or theism and should be free of any dogma. The government granting of aid to religious charities is un-Constitutional.

Regarding religious charities, one would feel more charitable toward them if they didn't dispense dogma with the charity. People in need are probably seen as good candidates for conversion, as they are vulnerable. You're more likely to find suckers in a soup kitchen than on Wall Street. So maybe religious charities aren't so worthy of congratulation after all.

"The Red states, with the highest conservative Christian populations, have a lot of problems compared to many of the Blue, from drug abuse to teen pregnancies to divorce rates. There's little evidence that living in a Christian conservative place provides a better society or a happier life"

Not surprising, as they have a "bury your head in the sand" mentality about EVERYTHING that is potentially uncomfortable or requires more study and knowledge than flipping through a Bible. A not-especially-well translated one at that (KJV). The language is pretty, but there are more and more instances where it's clear they got it wrong. That's how it goes when you are trying to translate ancient languages.

But it's funny that those who insist that theocracy is a bad, bad thing (elsewhere), are so vehement about how Christianity is THE basis of the U.S. Evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. More than one of our founding fathers were hardly fundamentalists in their views on religion.

Mr Mark:

I have been reading your posts for quite some time.

You come across as bigoted, hateful and just plain nasty when it comes to those that hold to the belief in God and attend church. Get a clue: Those that attend church and have accepted the truth as they have logically concluded that God exists, and can be known on a personal level, are there to learn more about God and how to be better people in the long term for the rest of their lives. They are way beyond questioning their faith as they have experienced God in a way that you seem to not be able to fathom.

It is far too late to try and use your "logic" to get them to walk away from their belief in the almighty. They don't want your diatribe as much as you don't want theirs.

As far as your other comments to the Reverend, you seem to deny that Jesus ever existed, which is very convenient as you would not have to confront what Jesus said and challenged each human being to do. To think that Socrates did not exist, or Plato for that matter, and not acknowledge the one man that had more influence over most of the world, is pure fantasy.

What you and most atheists want is proof not beyond a reasonable doubt, but proof where God himself will come down from on high and speak to you and prove through physical existence that HE IS.

Yes , the thing you call unbelief is a abyss- but reason is not part of that formula. It is more the large chip on your shoulders and other atheists where they think they must denigrate those that believe to make themselves feel all that better about their atheism.

What I don't get about many atheists is that they think they have to argue the point over and over again with believers- it is quite amusing to observe, because you would think you would just shrug and go you own way with your lack of belieg in theism. Just can't seem to do that though and that illustrates that the chip on your shoulder is just too much for you to handle.

Like in Macbeth - "The lady protests too much" - well, the some atheists seem to do the same and you are at the top of the list.

Another reason that non-religious folks may have a somewhat lower divorce rate is that they have probably "test-driven" more potential spouses before buying the car (committing to marriage), thus have different expectations. Then there are the folks who just "live in sin" and never marry, hence never got divorced. Some of those couples are the happiest I've known!

The Red states, with the highest conservative Christian populations, have a lot of problems compared to many of the Blue, from drug abuse to teen pregnancies to divorce rates. There's little evidence that living in a Christian conservative place provides a better society or a happier life.

The fact that you _have_ to ask the question pretty much sums up your ignorance.

Perhaps you should:

1. Shut up.
2. Read a history book.
3. Go away and actually follow the teaching of whatever religion you believe in.
4. Leave other people alone.
5. Or die now and become a martyr or saint.

Be sure to repeat step #5 as many times necessary for the rest of us to get some piece and quiet.

Now, shut up and start reading that history book.

From June 2003 (date of the first legal same-sex marriages in Ontario) to October 2006, there were 12,438 same-sex marriages contracted in Canada, according to a study by Canadians for Equal Marriage.

One curious phenomenon that we have been unable to understand is the extremely low divorce rate among same-sex couples.

(I've only seen information about 3 same-sex divorces online [Canada]. Does anyone have more up-to-date information? I doubt it's any higher than that of heterosexual marriages.)

One statistic you won't hear a lot on the lips of people who claim 'same-sex-marriage is a threat to marriage' ...is that the divorce rates are sharply *higher* in red states than blue ones... and where same-sex marriage is allowed are actually places with the lowest divorce rates in the country.

Methinks this religiosity has much to do with people being *promised* marital and other stability by extreme religion, not getting it, and desperately needing someone to blame.

Kind of like economically, the Red states have a perception that government handouts to the cities are the biggest drain on their economies, when in fact, the red states get much more than they give out of the arrangement.

Mr. Mark:

Thanks for posting that divorce study. When I wrote my post, I had in the back of my mind that there was one out there concerning the divorce rates among Christians and others, but could not recall the details.

I will offer the hypothesis that many atheists/ agnostics might "know" (in both biblical and conventional sense!) their partners better prior to marriage than many Christians do, since they often live together. Certainly true in my case.

But then the percentages are not drastically different, which only suggests to me that there is not much protection from divorce offered by a couple's religiosity.

Mr Mark: 14% is suprisingly high from my experience. Thank God.

"An atheist ought to consider what basis does he have for believing that someone will love him for life when he marries or whether his love feeling is really based on blind faith in human social behavior, like the religions they denounce, a culturally and historically bound gamble."

Barna report: Variation in divorce rates among Christian faith groups:

Denomination (in order of decreasing divorce rate)
% who have been divorced

Non-denominational ** 34%
Baptists 29%
Mainline Protestants 25%
Mormons 24%
Catholics 21%
Lutherans 21%

Variation in divorce rates by religion:

Religion % have been divorced
Jews 30%
Born-again Christians 27%
Other Christians 24%
Atheists, Agnostics 21%

Barna's results verified findings of earlier polls: that conservative Protestant Christians, on average, have the highest divorce rate, while mainline Christians have a much lower rate. They found some new information as well: that atheists and agnostics have the lowest divorce rate of all. George Barna commented that the results raise "questions regarding the effectiveness of how churches minister to families." The data challenge "the idea that churches provide truly practical and life-changing support for marriage."

Donald Hughes, author of The Divorce Reality, said:

"In the churches, people have a superstitious view that Christianity will keep them from divorce, but they are subject to the same problems as everyone else, and they include a lack of relationship skills. ...Just being born again is not a rabbit's foot."

Hughes claim that 90% of divorces among born-again couples occur after they have been "saved."

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

"An atheist ought to consider what basis does he have for believing that someone will love him for life when he marries or whether his love feeling is really based on blind faith in human social behavior, like the religions they denounce, a culturally and historically bound gamble."

I don't see the point here. Atheists marry for the same reasons and with the same information as theists. Sometimes it doesn't work out, in either group. It's not "blind faith". I prefer to distinguish between the words faith and trust. We develop trust in those closest to us based on evidence gathered from their past actions.

If we were to agree to marry, or put ourselves at the mercy of, someone we had no information about, that would be faith (or "blind faith"). Most of us, atheist and theist alike, don't do that, unless we are in a position in which we have no choice. We build relationships based on trust, and trust comes from information about those other people. It's not perfect (nothing ever is) but it's the foundation of all human interactions.

Ah yes EUFAME, how could I forget the part about the dirt and the talking cloud. ;)

W Chen writes:

"I came from China and want to share my observation on the charity of Chinese society and American society. Some cited Bill Gates and Warren Buffet as atheist charitable people. The economic boom in China generated numberous billionares but few charities in the atheist mojority Chinese society."

I happen to work in non-profit fund raising in the USA. Perhaps I can provide some perspective.

In the USA non-profit world, the super-rich are defined as those having an estate worth over $25-million. You may be surprised to learn that only 14% of the "super rich" leave anything at all to any charity of any kind. The other 86% leave the money to their families, preferring to pay the full tax liability on that money, rather than getting a tax break for charitable giving.

I don't know how many of those super-rich fall into the billionaire category, but I'd assume their charitable giving is no greater than that of their fellow super rich, whether here or in China.

To Ecburns:

But first you have to believe that we were made out of dirt and THEN you get to worry about a naked woman listening to a talking snake. Plus a naked man choosing to do her bidding, rather than playing by the rules set out by the talking cloud.

Thanks palefire.

Addressing folks that believe humanity only exists because some naked women ate a piece of fruit that a talking snake told her about is always odd. They never seem to get what is being said.

Hitchens like most Atheists confuses social conventions about the meaning of what they agree is meaningful for them with the meaning of what is meaningful for science. But the arbitrary meaning of a dollar, love, a Beginning, or a Deity has nothing to do with the law of physics or Evolution of Species. Elvis is really dead, there really is no Santa Claus, and there really is no such thing as a God, or Intelligent Design of the Universe, for scientific inquiry. But a lot of people still believe that Elvis is living in Milwaukee and that he shops at Wal-Mart's for midnight sales. And the tabloids make a lot of money from them, just as some other people make fortunes from variations of promoting Intelligent Design of the Universe. It's the human condition, to profit from faith. Promoting faith in the U.S. dollar or any currency, for instance, is also a commodity subject to nothing necessary according to the laws of Cosmology, Chemistry, Biology or Physics. To prove that my faith in the value of my money is unscientific is a waste of time. An atheist ought to consider what basis does he have for believing that someone will love him for life when he marries or whether his love feeling is really based on blind faith in human social behavior, like the religions they denounce, a culturally and historically bound gamble.

BAPTIST writes:
Mr. Mark,

"I'm not sure where your notion of "church" was formed, but it is simply not accurate. As a pastor, I can assure you that the members of my church do not simply absorb my sermons like zombies. Each person learns and questions in his/her own way. I receive hundreds of emails and phone calls each week from members who wish to discuss a sermon in more detail. And I can also assure you that just about every pastor I know would be more than willing to sit down and discuss whatever issue a non-churched person would wish to engage in."

Intentionally or not, you are re-framing what I said. I said nothing about BELIEVERS questioning your sermon. I specifically said NON-BELIEVERS questioning your sermon, and in the "open court" of a church service, as it were, not in some follow-up e-mail. The fact is that your flock DOES listen to your sermon like a bunch of zombies while you deliver it from the pulpit. My challenge was to open your sermon up for discussion on the spot, and to questioners whose questions wouldn't be limited to how many angels are dancing on that particular sermon's theological pinhead.

But let's pursue the idea of your flock "questioning in his/her own way." To what extent do you allow that questioning to proceed? Do you allow that your flock may question to the point *where they give up their belief entirely,* or do you only allow them to peer into the abyss of unbelief and reason, to be yanked back into the flock of faithful before leaping into that abyss?

I would say that any questioning that does not allow for a complete reversal of one's position/belief is no questioning at all. Such questioning is by nature, limited, and it constitutes an exercise in reinforcement of already-held beliefs and NOT a true search for "truth." One can be a lifelong Republican and switch to being a Democrat (and more people should do so) based on one's questioning, and I would think that you would say that was a valid choice that was made as the result of one's questioning.

So let me ask you, Reverend: if one of your flock looks at the Bible and considers the evidence against it and reaches the conclusion that there is no god, that Jesus was a myth and that your sermon was a journey into fantasyland, do you allow that their "questioning" has reached an appropriate, valid and - most importantly - a truthful conclusion, or do you think that something is very, very wrong?

Perhaps you can engage with me on this issue, even though I hardly consider myself "non-churched."

Hitchens like most Atheists confuses social conventions about the meaning of what they agree is meaningful for them with the meaning of what is meaningful for science. But the arbitrary meaning of a dollar, love, a Beginning, or a Deity has nothing to do with the law of physics or Evolution of Species. Elvis is really dead, there really is no Santa Claus, and there really is no such thing as a God, or Intelligent Design of the Universe, for scientific inquiry. But a lot of people still believe that Elvis is living in Milwaukee and that he shops at Wal-Mart's for midnight sales. And the tabloids make a lot of money from them, just as some other people make fortunes from variations of promoting Intelligent Design of the Universe. It's the human condition, to profit from faith. Promoting faith in the U.S. dollar or any currency, for instance, is also a commodity subject to nothing necessary according to the laws of Cosmology, Chemistry, Biology or Physics. To prove that my faith in the value of my money is unscientific is a waste of time. An atheist ought to consider what basis does he have for believing that someone will love him for life when he marries or whether his love feeling is really based on blind faith in human social behavior, like the religions they denounce, a culturally and historically bound gamble.

I think part of the problem with this author's assertions is that, well, why would an atheist feel the need to advertise their atheism when trying to run a charity?

It's people who are *using* charities as a conversion tool to a *belief* that generally feel the need to proclaim their religious piety... why would an atheist or even a non-sectarian bother?

Certainly in an age of 'faith based initiatives' where all the money goes to Christian proselytizing groups, you can't fault a non-belief for not advertising itself in an organized fashion.

Frankly, it's usually Christian religious who claim our *secular* society shouldn't help the poor through the government programs that really constitute more than a drop in the bucket for a select few believers.

And I'll relate how Pagans felt blindsides by the Bush administration claiming that Pagans couldn't volunteer to use faith-based funding because 'Pagans are uncharitable.'

Funny, cause a) we have no need to advertise, (well, apart from trying to show some of what we do in order not to be defamed in that way) and b) often actually have to hide where our charity comes from, lest 'faith based' Christians refuse to accept the aid from us.

The claims that only (certain) religious are charitable is really a self-created and self-reinforcing perception.

Ask some Buddhist monks sometime, maybe. :)

Piggly wiggly wrote:

You clearly have no idea whatsoever about the historical development of the Soviet Union. Fortunately both Lenin and Stalin have left us volumes of their own writings from which to draw conclusions. Of course, you probably never read them. National Socialism and Marxism are philosophies you idiot, not forms of government.
__________________________________________________

Great strawman there piggly, ecburns never said anything about Marxism or National Socialism. ecburns addressed Fascism, Nazism and communism. You then placed words in ecburns mouth and called him idiot. I assume somebody that lack the abilty to read printed words properly and then falsely castigates the person that they miss quoted is a good solid "Christian". How special.

Speaking of history:

White outlines how one of the King's subjects, a gentlewoman named Eufame MacAlyane, was suffering unbearable pain during the birth of her twin sons. In desperation, she sought pain-relief from Agnes Sampson, reportedly a witch. MacAlyane thereby violated God’s command in Gen. 3:16: "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

The King ordered her execution. Eufame MacAlyane was burned alive on Castle Hill, Edinburgh in 1591.

Eufame MacAlyane:

You can't really believe that the cause of Hitler's rise and actions are actually tied to his views on Christianity can you???

WW I left Germany in terrible economic straits and Hitler's rise to power was on his charisma and promise to restore economic wealth to Germany. He made scapegoats of the Jews and took their wealth to bolster his "good germans". People were slaughtered because they were the cause of Germany's problems. Never underestimate the power of a scapegoat. People went along with this, not because of religious belief, but because it allowed them to blame someone else for thier plight and to see a way out of the misary of thier times instead of working hard to correct problems and to overcome misery as they should have. History is full of such examples.

Ignorance is thre real problem and Mr. Hitchen's has displayed his. Religion is the polish that people use to justify their own actions, as has Nazi nationalism, communism, and any other number of ism's. When people allow others to think for them it is a bad situation and will lead to disaster. Look at politics in the 21st century. People blindly vote for a political party as representing them without true knowledge of the individuals that will be representing or leading them. This will lead to its own brand of crusades and other such problems just as religion did in the middle ages.

Don't confuse the actions of individuals in the name of faith with the actual faith. Understand what the tennets are and you will find that they support love of mankind, charity, and forgiveness. They will never support war except against evil, unfortunately it is this point ceased upon by fanatics to apply their label of what evil is. The bible defines this for us as it defines the other tenents of our faith but men have been warping the words of God as long as they have existed, as they have every other aspect of life. Anything that can give evil men power over others will be exploited (even science).

"The problem with panels like this is that there is not going to be a follow up by Dr Land in response to the many valid refutations of his orginal statement."

Sometimes panelists do jump in and add follow-up comments. I've seen a couple do that. More often, you can see the comments on past columns reflected in subsequent columns by the same panelist (sometimes overtly, sometimes it's subtle). And then there are some panelists who seem immune to the comments, assuming they bother even to read them.

I am an atheist who has taken a vow of poverty and works tirelessly in sacrifice to others via multiple 501c3s!

Mr. Mark,

I'm not sure where your notion of "church" was formed, but it is simply not accurate. As a pastor, I can assure you that the members of my church do not simply absorb my sermons like zombies. Each person learns and questions in his/her own way. I receive hundreds of emails and phone calls each week from members who wish to discuss a sermon in more detail. And I can also assure you that just about every pastor I know would be more than willing to sit down and discuss whatever issue a non-churched person would wish to engage in.

The doors to our church are ALWAYS open. 24 hours a day. Seven days a week.

Rich blessings,

It's the hypocrisy that makes people loathe the religiously self-righteous: not their beliefs. Of course there are good Christians out there, but the rest of us don't justify our actions by claiming we speak for gods.

If he believes atheists (and presumably agnostics and the "unchurched")do no good in the world, I have to wonder if Richard Land recognizes the the good works of buddhists, Muslims, hindus, and other non-Christian religionists. I'm guessing he doesn't.

And if a Christian does evil? Then he must not be a "real" Christian. Meanwhile,Land accuses free thinkers of being arrogant.

I came from China and want to share my observation on the charity of Chinese society and American society. Some cited Bill Gates and Warren Buffet as atheist charitable people. The economic boom in China generated numberous billionares but few charities in the atheist mojority Chinese society. Can we think this way?: American society with a religous mojority is more generous than the Chinese society with an atheist mojority.
Mr. Bill Gates and Mr. Warren Buffet are respectable, but they are the products of a religous society.
Recently in Nanjing there is a civil law suit against a young man for pushing down a old lady, citing evidence that he helped her after her injury. The court in Nanjing gave a guilty verdict based on its assumption: NORMALLY people will not help other people unless he/she hurted them.
Such assumption is one of the products of an atheist mojority.
God Bless America, religous and atheist.

I came from China and want to share my observation on the charity of Chinese society and American society. Some cited Bill Gates and Warren Buffet as atheist charitable people. The economic boom in China generated numberous billionares but few charities in the atheist mojority Chinese society. Can we think this way?: American society with a religous mojority is more generous than the Chinese society with an atheist mojority.
Mr. Bill Gates and Mr. Warren Buffet are respectable, but they are the products of a religous society.
Recently in Nanjing there is a civil law suit against a young man for pushing down a old lady, citing evidence that he helped her after her injury. The court in Nanjing gave a guilty verdict based on its assumption: NORMALLY people will not help other people unless he/she hurted them.
Such assumption is one of the products of an atheist mojority.
God Bless America, religous and atheist.

I came from China and want to share my observation on the charity of Chinese society and American society. Some cited Bill Gates and Warren Buffet as atheist charitable people. The economic boom in China generated numberous billionares but few charities in the atheist mojority Chinese society. Can we think this way?: American society with a religous mojority is more generous than the Chinese society with an atheist mojority.
Mr. Bill Gates and Mr. Warren Buffet are respectable, but they are the products of a religous society.
Recently in Nanjing there is a civil law suit against a young man for pushing down a old lady, citing evidence that he helped her after her injury. The court in Nanjing gave a guilty verdict based on its assumption: NORMALLY people will not help other people unless he/she hurted them.
Such assumption is one of the products of an atheist mojority.
God Bless America, religous and atheist.

I came from China and want to share my observation on the charity of Chinese society and American society. Some cited Bill Gates and Warren Buffet as atheist charitable people. The economic boom in China generated numberous billionares but few charities in the atheist mojority Chinese society. Can we think this way?: American society with a religous mojority is more generous than the Chinese society with an atheist mojority.
Mr. Bill Gates and Mr. Warren Buffet are respectable, but they are the products of a religous society.
Recently in Nanjing there is a civil law suit against a young man for pushing down a old lady, citing evidence that he helped her after her injury. The court in Nanjing gave a guilty verdict based on its assumption: NORMALLY people will not help other people unless he/she hurted them.
Such assumption is one of the products of an atheist mojority.
God Bless America, religous and atheist.

Matamoros:

What about WW I, WW II, etc. These wars were fought over economics, security, freedom etc. These are secular ideals as well as relegious and came about because of treaties, not religious movements.

In these wars great atrocities were committed, some even by the "good" guys. Promoting secular needs, how are these wars and their outcomes any better than the "religious" wars of the crusades and jihads. Of course, in truth the very faiths being used to justify these horrible acts teach that thier actions are wrong. The majority of people involved in Christianity (for example) understand this and revile the acts carried out by the few extremist. Of course, as is always the case history only records the acts of those willing to speak up, act up, and push forward. Sadly for the world this is most often the extremist. Please don't confuse my faith with the acts of people several hundred years ago. They are worlds apart and in my mind had nothing to do with christianity as it has been taught to me and accepted in my soul.

Religion has had its bad people as have governments. As much if not more bloodshed has been caused by world leaders promoting completely secular motives as have been caused by religious leaders and their followers. You cannot argue one without recognizing the other (if you truly profess to use logic).

Matamoros:

"Tim:

Where are the atheist leaders bombing countries to control their resources, blowing themselves up on public buses and building settlements on disputed
territories?
What does any of this have to do with the validity or invalidity of an argument for atheism, agnosticism or organized religion?
This guy is an intellectual midget."

Are you unfamiliar with the history of the twentieth century? Take a look at Alan Bullock's "Hitler and Stalin" as beginning and inform yourself.

Matamoros:
my point was that the amount given to charity by an atheist has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not organized religion or atheism is valid. Yes I'm familiar with Hitler and Stalin. I'm also familiar with George Bush, Ariel Sharon and the Ayatollah.
I also invite you to read about the Catholic Church's pact with Hitler while he was calling for the destruction of the Jews. And the absolutely brutal history of southern white churches that Mr. Land thinks are so swell.

MARY ANN writes:
"The problem with panels like this is that there is not going to be a follow up by Dr Land in response to the many valid refutations of his orginal statement."

That's because preaching isn't teaching and diatribes aren't dialogues.

One wonders where religion would be in this country if non-believers were invited to attend church services with the express purpose of challenging statements made during the sermon, in effect, having a dialogue.

I'd give the churches roughly 3 years before they were either shuttered or converted into luxury housing.

Hitler’s involvement with the Church:

a) Hitler was baptized as Roman Catholic during infancy in Austria.

b) As Hitler approached boyhood he attended a monastery school. (On his way to school young Adolf daily observed a stone arch which was carved with the monastery’s coat of arms bearing a swastika.)

c) Hitler was a communicant and an altar boy in the Catholic Church.

d) As a young man he was confirmed as a “soldier of Christ.” His most ardent goal at the time was to become a priest. Hitler writes of his love for the church and clergy: “I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal.” -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

e) Hitler was NEVER excommunicated nor condemned by his church. Matter of fact the Church felt he was JUST and “avenging for God” in attacking the Jews for they deemed the Semites the killers of Jesus.

f) Hitler, Franco and Mussolini were given VETO power over whom the pope could appoint as a bishop in Germany, Spain and Italy. In turn they surtaxed the Catholics and gave the money to the Vatican. Hitler wrote a speech in which he talks about this alliance, this is an excerpt: “The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany means the acknowledgement of the National Socialist state by the Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism [Nazism] is hostile to religion is a lie.” Adolf Hitler, 22 July 1933, writing to the Nazi Party

g) Hitler worked CLOSELY with Pope Pius in converting Germanic society and supporting the church. The Church absorbed Nazi ideals and preached them as part of their sermons in turn Hitler placed Catholic teachings in public education. This photo depicts Hitler with Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo, the papal nuncio in Berlin. It was taken On April 20, 1939, when Orsenigo celebrated Hitler’s birthday. The celebrations were initiated by Pacelli (Pope Pius XII) and became a tradition.

Each April 20, Cardinal Bertram of Berlin was to send “warmest congratulations to the Fuhrer in the name of the bishops and the dioceses in Germany with “fervent prayers which the Catholics of Germany are sending to heaven on their altars.” (If you would like to know more about the secret dealings of Hitler and the Pope I recommend you get a book titled: Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII, by John Cornwell)

h) Due to Hitler’s involvement with the Church he began enacting doctrines of the Church as law. He outlawed all abortion, raged a death war on all homosexuals, and demanded corporal punishment in schools and home. Many times Hitler addressed the church and promised that Germany would implement its teachings: “The National Socialist State professes its allegiance to positive Christianity. It will be its honest endeavor to protect both the great Christian Confessions in their rights, to secure them from interference with their doctrines (Lehren), and in their duties to constitute a harmony with the views and the exigencies of the State of today.” –Adolf Hitler, on 26 June 1934, to Catholic bishops to assure them that he would take action against the new pagan propaganda “Providence has caused me to be Catholic, and I know therefore how to handle this Church.” -Adolf Hitler, reportedly to have said in Berlin in 1936 on the enmity of the Catholic Church to National Socialism

How Christianity was the catalyst of the Holocaust:

Hitler’s anti-Semitism grew out of his Christian education. Austria and Germany were majorly Christian during his time and they held the belief that Jews were an inferior status to Aryan Christians. The Christians blamed the Jews for the killing of Jesus. Jewish hatred did not actually spring from Hitler, it came from the preaching of Catholic priests and Protestant ministers throughout Germany for hundreds of years. The Protestant leader, Martin Luther, himself, held a livid hatred for Jews and their Jewish religion. In his book, “On the Jews and their Lies,” Luther set the standard for Jewish hatred in Protestant Germany up until World War 2. Hitler expressed a great admiration for Martin Luther constantly quoting his works and beliefs.

Now, you must remember before Hitler rose to Chancellor of Germany the country was in a deep economic depression due to the Versailles treaty. The Versailles treaty demanded that Germans made financial reparations for the previous war and Germany simply was not self sufficient enough in order to pay the debt. Hitler was the leader that raised Germany out of the depression and brought them back to a world recognized power. Due to his annulment of the financial woes of the Germanic people he became their redeemer and they anointed him as the leader of the German Reich Christian Church in 1933. This placed him in power of the German Christian Socialist movement which legislates their political and religious agendas. It united all denominations, mainly the Protestant/Catholic and Lutheran people to instill faith in a national Christianity.

How the Nazi Regime converted the people:

a) In the 1920s, Hitler’s German Workers’ Party (pre Nazi term) adopted a “Programme” with twenty-five points (the Nazi version of a constitution). In point twenty-four, their intent clearly demonstrates, from the very beginning, their stand in favor of a “positive” Christianity: “We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession...”

b) The Nazi regime started a youth movement which preached its agenda to impressionable children. Hitler backed up the notion that all people need faith and religious education: “By helping to raise man above the level of bestial vegetation, faith contributes in reality to the securing and safeguarding of his existence. Take away from present-day mankind its education-based, religious- dogmatic principles-- or, practically speaking, ethical-moral principles-- by abolishing this religious education, but without replacing it by an equivalent, and the result will be a grave shock to the foundations of their existence.” – Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

c) The Nazi regime began to control schools insisting that Christianity was taught.

d) The Nazi regime included anti-Semitic Christian writings in textbooks and they were not removed from Christian doctrines until 1961.

e) The Nazi regime having full blown power over the people began to forcibly convert all its military.

f) The Nazi regime forced the German soldiers to wear religious symbols such as the swastika and they placed religious sayings on military gear. An example here is this German army belt buckle (I believe my Opa had one) which reads “Gott Mit Uns”. For those of you who do not speak German it is translated as “God With Us”.

g) The German troops were often forced to get sprinkled with holy water and listen to a sermon by a Catholic priest before going out on a maneuver.

h) The Nazis created a secret service called the “SS Reich” that would act as spies on the dealings of other citizens. If anyone was suspected of heresy (Going not only against the Socialist party but CHURCH DOCTRINE) they would be prosecuted.

Quotes from Hitler:

Hitler’s speeches and proclamations, even more clearly, reveal his faith and feelings toward a Christianized Germany. Nazism presents an embarrassment to Christianity and demonstrates the danger of their faith So they try to pin him on other theistic views. The following words from Hitler show his disdain for atheism, and pagan cults, and reveal the strength of his Christian feelings:

“National Socialism is not a cult-movement-- a movement for worship; it is exclusively a ‘volkic’ political doctrine based upon racial principles. In its purpose there is no mystic cult, only the care and leadership of a people defined by a common blood-relationship... We will not allow mystically- minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else-- in any case something which has nothing to do with us. At the head of our programme there stand no secret surmisings but clear-cut perception and straightforward profession of belief. But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will-- not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord… Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed. Our humility is the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so far as they are known to us men.” -Adolf Hitler, in Nuremberg on 6 Sept.1938. [Christians have always accused Hitler of believing in pagan cult mythology. What is written here clearly expresses his stand against cults.]

“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” -Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933 [This statement clearly refutes modern Christians who claim Hitler as favoring atheism. Hitler wanted to form a society in which ALL people worshipped Jesus and considered any questioning of such to be heresy. The Holocaust was like a modern inquisition, killing all who did not accept Jesus. Though more Jews were killed then any other it should be noted that MANY ARYAN pagans and atheists were murdered for their non-belief in Christ.]

Here Hitler uses the Bible and his Christianity in order to attack the Jews and uphold his anti-Semitism:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is quite obvious here that Hitler is referring to destructing the Judaism alters on which Christianity was founded.)

"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (The idea of the devil and the Jew came out of medieval anti-Jewish beliefs based on interpretations from the Bible. Martin Luther, and teachers after him, continued this “tradition” up until the 20th century.)

"With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is common in war for one race to rape another so that they can “defile” the race and assimilate their own. Hitler speaks about this very tactic here.)

“The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present- day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation.”–Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

"…the fall of man in paradise has always been followed by his expulsion." -Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (See Genesis Chapter 3 where humankind is cast from Eden for their sins. Hitler compares this to the need to exterminate the Jews for their sin against Christ.)

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” –Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

“The anti-Semitism of the new movement [Christian Social movement] was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge.” –Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (This quote is very interesting for it disperses the idea that Hitler raged war due to being an Aryan supremacist. He states quite clearly that he has a problem with Jews for their belief not race. That is why many German Jews died in WW2 regardless of their Aryan nationality.)

“Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain.” –Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (Here Hitler is admitting that his war against the Jews were so successful because of his strong Christian Spirituality.)

Quotes from Other Nazis about Hitler and Religion:

"Around 1937, when Hitler heard that at the instigation of the party and the SS vast numbers of his followers had left the church because it was obstinately opposing his plans, he nevertheless ordered his chief associates, above all Goering and Gobbels, to remain members of the church. He too would remain a member of the Catholic Church, he said, although he had no real attachment to it. And in fact he remained in the church until his suicide." (Inside the Third Reich by Albert Speer page 95-96)

Yoyo:

You make a good example of the faulty logic being applied to the arguments in favor of Mr. Hitchen's book.

Secularism method? What the heck is that. SCIENCE made the advances that you talk about. Secular does not equal scientific as I can easily see by the arguments posted. It is also easily seen in past history where secular advancement has made huge blunders, cost lives, etc. Science is not exclusive of religious faith. It is at odds with some established religious organizations specific tenents but that doesn't make all religious belief bad. Some religious (yes even Christian) faith have no problem with science, its benefits and its applicability to our world. However, science cannot explain everything as has been amply documented throughout history, because we are fundamentally flawed and lack knowledge. It is why we continue to grow as people.

Most of you are forgetting that true religious belief is about the personal journey and transformation in imulation of an ideal state (God). Of course there will always be those that use religion, just as there are those that use science to promote evil acts. These acts are done by people in the "name" of something and yes, religion has been used regularly to do this. Believe it or not, science has also been used to do this (Mengala was a professed Athiest). It is successful because in both cases, the knowledge base of the individuals in an organization/society is too limited to understand what they are seeing (or experiencing) and rely on others to explain it to them as "experts". For hundreds of years people died because of blood loss when philosophy and science of the times led physicians to "bleed" people with leeches. Any logical person would laugh at those beliefs today but they were the prevalent scientific understanding of the time. The same can be said for the Catholic church during the middle ages. We look back on it now, as people of faith, and see the bad things that were done in the name of faith and regret them. Because of the complexity of science many people have been duped into giving their life savings in cures, perpetual motion machines, etc. that have absolutely nothing to do with religion. Many lives have been ruined this way.

If I applied your logic, there is a greater evil in secularism method because it invented the atomic bomb (something completely not associated with religion). Look how many people were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in an instant because of 2 bombs. It was not done in the name of religion as the crusades were but one could easily argue that more deaths have been caused in WW I, WW II, The Korean conflict, and the Vietnam war than were ever caused by the crusades. In fact I would argue that secular ideals, when promoted by world leaders (freedom, security, protection) have been the cause of much more massive events of death than any other cause.

Bad people do bad things. Ignorant people will make mistakes and face it, we cannot as a human being know everything so we are bound to make mistakes. If we learn from them and carefully examine our own beliefs with a healthy scepticism then we will be better people. These fundamental truths will not change and you should not use the acts of insane (or evil depending on your faith) people to justify why religious belief is bad. Give me logical arguments on the detriments to the tenants of religion and accept comment on the detriments of a purely secular view.

The tenents of my faith call for me to reject violence, to help my fellow man, and to respect everyone. From my understanding there is no tenent to being an athiest but it does lead you to put supreme confidence in logic and science. Since both of these are limited by applied knowledge, I would think that you would have to agree that your way is equally flawed as the application of faith is in mine.

Don't for one second think that getting rid of religion would get rid of evil in the world. My faith tells me why, your logic should tell you that bad people will just find another cause, that is the true lesson of history, fail to understand this and you are doomed to repeat it.

The Southern Baptist Convention was formed to give moral and biblical support to slavery. Later the convention supported segregation. In the 1950's through at least the 70's it supported resistance to integration. Multiple SBC presidents denounced Martin Luther King, jr. in the strongest possible terms including "agitator" and "communist". Now, to invoke his name in a dispute with Mr. Hitchens seems to me only to supply Mr. Hitchens with more ammunition. Oh, the irony of it all!

Mary Ann is correct!

Religions spend money on stained glass, Crystal Cathedrals, in general the promotion of their business called ministries. Atheists have none of these and therefore most of the money they collect for charity actually goes to charity.

What happened to Katrina relief money given to religions, ministers that supported Bush by and large? How much of that charity got or is getting through to those who lost it all? The numbers are staggering, reported to be over 4 billion dollars. How much has gone, is going into stained glass?

Religion is government supported crime, the old con game. "Faith" is the key ingredient. Faith in what? Not God for sure. The oldest profession is not prostitution. It's the ministry.

The problem with panels like this is that there is not going to be a follow up by Dr Land in response to the many valid refutations of his orginal statement.

I think that a lot of people are missing the point somewhat. The reality is that a religious man is no more or less inclined to human failure than an atheist. Humans are human.

So, if you look for failure in one group of people alone you are bound to be hypocritical. Look, I'm not religious, but blaming all religion for the actions of mankind rather loses sight of accountability.

I think that Communism and Nazism are interesting comparisons. The truth here is that humans and society are capable of great and terrible things, no matter what impulse drives us. A blind commitment to religion and a blind commitment to the state are equally dangerous.

Personally, I find that there are qualities in both secular and religious thought that are beneficial to human growth. Someone here asked why self sacrifice is relevant and noted that many religious people are wealthy. OK, two sides of the coin (so to speak). The ideal of giving of yourself and understanding suffering personally is pretty powerful, and it speaks in general to caring for your fellow man. The ideal of rational thought is crucial to the growth of society and it speaks to human desire for self knowledge and hope.

I do think that people who post that atheists don't believe an individual is responsible for others well being and that that should be the job of the state and society are fooling themselves. That world doesn't exist, and you can't absolve yourself through the state. You are responsible for your decisions (help or not help others), and if you take on the mantle of the state then you have to bear the stains of it's injustices as well.

ECBurns:
Fascism, Nazism and communism—all secular? these a forms of government - if you didn't notice. So is democracy, which is also secular. It's also worth noting that the Nazism used a strong religious component. To give Atheists credit for communism makes as much sense as giving Atheists credit for democracy or military dictatorship. In other words - it makes no sense at all."

You clearly have no idea whatsoever about the historical development of the Soviet Union. Fortunately both Lenin and Stalin have left us volumes of their own writings from which to draw conclusions. Of course, you probably never read them. National Socialism and Marxism are philosophies you idiot, not forms of government.

By the way, I'm not expecting any afterlife pay-off for my charity in this life. I do it because it is necessary and because I can, and no one is aware of it but my wife and me (and I suppose the IRS when it comes to monetary donations ... "death and taxes", you know).

Which is the more ethical stance ... donating because you believe it is right, since we all only get one shot at life and everyone needs to pitch in and help make THIS world better; or donating because you believe it is right, and it helps buy your ticket to salvation?

"And yes, many Christians give to charities-if you count giving to their own religious group a charity. Plus, Christians usually do "charity" to get converts, not out of purly selfless reasons"

And how exactly do you know this as a fact? Do you have any empirical evidence for your assertion?

Land's questions about atheists are hilarious. Where are the atheists who have taken a vow of poverty, he asks ...while living in a country where tens of millions of devout Christians live high on the hog, more-or-less ignoring the plight of starving millions in Africa and elsewhere. Their Christian law-makers pump billions into the pockets of Christian corporate farmers in the way of subsidies, while blocking access by poor countries to Christian America's markets with tariffs.

He has the hypocrisy to point at atheist leaders' lack of poverty vows while living in a country where thousands of Christian religious leaders live lives of millionaires, utterly driven by blatant commercialism and consumerism. And I haven't noticed any Catholic bishops or cardinals living a life of poverty, either. They live and move about like princes, and live in palatial comfort.

And lastly, it is the American Fundamentalist Christians, who pray every day to their 'Prince of Peace', who are the most ardent supporters of the brutal, illegal, aggressive war in Iraq.

Take a good look at your fellow Christians, Mr Land, before criticizing atheists.

"Tim:

Where are the atheist leaders bombing countries to control their resources, blowing themselves up on public buses and building settlements on disputed
territories?
What does any of this have to do with the validity or invalidity of an argument for atheism, agnosticism or organized religion?
This guy is an intellectual midget."

Are you unfamiliar with the history of the twentieth century? Take a look at Alan Bullock's "Hitler and Stalin" as beginning and inform yourself.

Thank goodness that catholic school cured me of all need for organized religion...though I do seem to remember that fellow Jesus saying something like it was only the charlatans and high priests that made spectacles of themselves when they were giving alms or fasting and stuff...you know...like the so called charitable religious people in your article...

And please don't confuse the actions of religious drones who donate money and time with their leaders...that is just plain misleading (for example, see Vatican City...striking, really).

Land's questions are hilarious. Where are the atheists who have taken a vow of poverty, he asks ...while living in a country where tens of millions of devout Christians live high on the hog, more-or-less ignoring the plight of starving millions in Africa and elsewhere. Their Christian law-makers pump billions into the pockets of Christian corporate farmers in the way of subsidies, while blocking access by poor countries to Christian America's markets with tariffs.

He has the hypocrisy to point at atheist leaders' lack of poverty vows while living in a country where thousands of Christian religious leaders live lives of millionaires, utterly driven by blatant commercialism and consumerism. And I haven't noticed any Catholic bishops or cardinals living a life of poverty, either. They live and move about like princes, and live in palatial comfort.

And lastly, it is the American Fundamentalist Christians, who pray every day to their 'Prince of Peace', who are the most ardent supporters of the brutal, illegal, aggressive war in Iraq.

Take a good look at your fellow Christians, Mr Land, before criticizing atheists.

What tripe.

Not believing in supernatural beings is not an institution. As such Atheists have no organizational leaders, because they have no organizations. But surely you already knew that.

Are you telling us that you can not think of a single non-religous based charity?

Going through charitable organizations and NGO memebers, I would bet good money that you would find more Atheists than Christrians as a relative percentage related to the percentage of Atheists and Christians in our society.

Fascism, Nazism and communism—all secular? these a forms of government - if you didn't notice. So is democracy, which is also secular. It's also worth noting that the Nazism used a strong religious component. To give Atheists credit for communism makes as much sense as giving Atheists credit for democracy or military dictatorship. In other words - it makes no sense at all.

"JD:

Land can't refute Hitchen so he launches an attack on non-believers. Kind of proves Hitchen's point, doesn't it?"

I suppose it would to an idiot like you.

Where are the atheists? Well, some of them have given $billions to charitable causes. I believe that if there were no religion, the people who are involved in religiously sponsored humanitarian work would still be doing it. There are countless "do-good" organizations that are not religiously oriented.

Land's questions are hilarious. Where are the atheists who have taken a vow of poverty, he asks ...while living in a country where tens of millions of devout Christians live high on the hog, more-or-less ignoring the plight of starving millions in Africa and elsewhere. Their Christian law-makers pump billions into the pockets of Christian corporate farmers in the way of subsidies, while blocking access to Christian America's markets with tariffs.

He has the hypocrisy to point at 'atheist leaders' lack of poverty vows while living in a country where thousands of Christian religious leaders live lives of millionaires, utterly driven by blatant consumerism. And I haven't noticed any Catholic bishops or cardinals living a life of poverty, either. They live and move about like princes, and live in palatial comfort.

And lastly, it is the American Fundamentalist Christians who pray every day to their 'Prince of Peace' who are the most ardent supporters of the brutal, illegal, aggressive war in Iraq.

Take a good look in the mirror, Mr Land.

By Charity, the author refers to the kind of blind-contributions which yield golden cash registers, and similar loot for televangelists. He refers no-doubt to the gilding of the Pope's spoons, hats, shoes, cars, bedposts, etc ...

Bigotry by definition, exists in kindness toward one own kind, and violence towards others. Here in defense of that claim, the author cites the kindnesses towards one own kind. The church has been kind to Nazi's, Kind to slaveowners in the south, it has openly justified slave-holding, elimination of "Christ-Killers", the hanging of uppity-Negroes, and most recently the murder of Matthew Shephard, etc ... That it has been kind to its own is no defense of the injuries it has visited on those outside its purvey.

Where are the atheist leaders bombing countries to control their resources, blowing themselves up on public buses and building settlements on disputed
territories?
What does any of this have to do with the validity or invalidity of an argument for atheism, agnosticism or organized religion?
This guy is an intellectual midget.

Mr. Land, atheists are doing all of the good works that you have mentioned here. - running charities, working pro-bono, etc. In fact, these people are probably too busy to worry about how it affects the public view of Atheism. They don't care what you think.

The salient point is that Atheism (with a captial A) is not a religion and never will be. You will never see Atheist ministers delivering shots and atheist gospel in Africa. You will never see paid TV shows in which a host invokes atheist beliefs to help starving children. And you certainly won't see congregants filing into a United Church of Atheism each Sunday (or Monday, Tuesday, whatever).

Atheism is a personal, intellectual judgement on what really happens in the cosmos. It's not a church, it's not a movement, it's not a threat.

“On Faith” panelist Richard Land says, "Hitchens is right because humankind is sinful and selfish."

What does the word sinful mean? Does it apply to everyone? How do you know that?

You're on very thin ice. The Bible is a proved hoax so everything you say based upon it is in ipso facto a hoax.

Does God hoax us? http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul is the only correct reading of the Moses tale. That was Devil and not God in the burning bush.

Religion being Devil worship explains how Hitchens is right. The fact that he left "Devil worshiping" out of the list says he's polite, a virtue that has no equal in hell.

The counterpoints have mostly been made (and made well) to Mr. Land's assertion that atheists are somehow lacking in charitable giving. I laughed out loud at his comment about "vows of poverty". I'll bet my next paycheck that Mr. Land's take-home income exceeds that of both my wife and me combined.

My family is of modest income and completely non-religious. We donate regularly to numerous charities and non-profit groups that serve our community, both in money, materials, and time. We have never thought about whether the organizations were secular or religious; as long as they were doing tasks to make the world a better place, they are worthy of our support. I see no need to create new atheistic charitable organizations if the existing ones serve the same purpose. Undoubtedly many such groups are already staffed by non-believers and theists alike.

Mr. Land, your comments are not only uncharitable to the minority of non-beleivers in this country, they don't strike me as very Christian either. But you're the expert on Christian ethics; you tell me.

The profits from any organized begging (with phone banks, telethons,in a 24/7 sweat shop)have a long turn around time, but organized begging is a lot more profitable if your appeal is in the name of someone needy(usually in distress and presented sympathetically) and it's way more profitable than any dis-organized individual begging (street begging by individuals in their own name). And because the turn around time for successful organized begging is longer than for other kinds of profitable endeavors, it requires staff engaged in voluntary poverty. The problem then is what to do with the profits of such begging. After a gift of some of it to the persons in whose name the begging was made, there are administrative costs for the staff (not much other than food, clothing, shelter and minor purchases, sort of as there were for slaves) and promotion of more begging appeals, usually by well coifed, richly suited and impressively healthy, affluently impressive management. Hence the rush of such management to fill the halls of hospitals (often with a resident office at the hospital) for death bed visitations to strangers when they are most susceptible to organized begging appeals for sudden bequests and legacies to keep the begging organization growing. Although the organized beggars cannot post annual financial statements as large as other kinds of corporations, as time goes by the organized begging corporations tend to outlast the purely commercial for profit businesses, whether as Reverend Ike said, God really loves prosperity.

With all due respect, this is not a "we're better than they are and we can prove it" issue.

No one is saying that charity isn't a good thing. We ARE saying that charity doesn't require religion.

Why in the world would there ever be an "Atheist Children's Home"? Secularists don't need banners to do good works.

Are you personally insulted by Hitchen's remarks? Even if you are, you cannot be reasonable and still dismiss such minor events as (and there are tens of thousands of other examples):

-- the forced expulsion of Jews from Spain and associated forced conversions during the Inquisition;
-- the destruction perpetrated throughout Europe and the Middle East by the "knights" of the Crusades;
-- the burning at the stake of "witches";
-- the obliteration of entire cultures for the sake of "saving" them and "educating" them.

And that's just a taste of what Christians have done. (I'm not aware of similar bad works on the part of organized secularists; the folks who captured and enslaved Africans probably ate the Christmas goose, no?)

But this is not a Christian issue. It's an issue of ALL organized religion.

Everything has a good and bad side to it. Religion's bad side, and the evil that was done in the name of your savior, FAR outweighs the good that may have been done by American Protestants in the 20th Century.

So please, continue your good works. But don't look down your nose at me because my good works are done without the "benefit" of your imprimatur.

The plethora of religions justifies belief in the existence of an instinct to believe in something supernatural but renders extremely improbable the existence of a god to believe in.

The existence of astrologers and the many who read them does not indicate even a tiny probability that astrology is an accurate guide to any individuals' future.

Theists are caught in the same trap. That is why they must rely upon "faith". Faith is a way of ending rational argument. It is the Ace of trumps. Faith = "I believe in X. I can offer you no justification except that millions of others are equally deluded. However, X must be a true belief because I believe in X."

Survival of the fittest. Let the feeble rot.

Oh, give me a break. How utterly disingenuous, hypocritical, and downright deceitful can you be Richard? You know as well as I do that there are no Southern Baptist leaders who have taken vows of poverty. As for charitable service, nearly every other Baptist group in North America has begun a process of forming closer ties, and have begun examining ways to explore ministering more in the way that Jesus himself did. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have both been involved in this process. Southern Baptist leaders from all parts of the convention have blasted this as "social ministry" and stated that it was a waste of money. You, yourself, inferred that this was a waste of money, and that the entire purpose of "mission" is to convert unbelievers to your version of Christianity, not to minister to the poor and hungry. The leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention are just as dogmatic and fundamental as the Shiite leaders in Iran. All they are concerned about is money and power, particularly political power. If there is indeed a judgement day, I have no doubt at all that the leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention will stand accused of the same sins as the Pharisees. Pull that beam out of your own eye, Richard, before you worry about splinters impaled in those who do not share your ontology.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are non-believers. They also are the most charitable philanthropists in the history of this planet.

Mr. Land is guilty of setting up nonsensical "straw man" arguments and ignoring problems with his case. He claims that fascism is entirely secular: not true. The root of Fascism is in the Catholic Inquisition; the ongoing con game of religion is fascist in nature. The Christian Fascists who seek to impose a theocracy on America are a far greater danger than the alleged "Islamofascist." We're fighting the Christian and Zionist Fascists here, and they're a clear and present danger.

Dr. Land's arguement is weak at best.

I have seen how the "leaders" of organized religion live and it ain't bad by a long shot.

The thing is that leadership is a quality, not a position; and, many "religious leaders" are sorely lacking.

Mike

Land misunderstands Hitchens question. He's simply asking what religious people DO that can't also be done without a belief in a supernatural being.

The reason there are no "atheist" orphanages is that atheists simply don't organize in terms of their lack of religious belief. Land is obviously limited in his ability to imagine that people might organize and act in any other way. The appropriate words are secular or non-sectarian, rather than atheist. There are plenty of aid workers, doctors and others around the world who are not believers. I put in time at a food bank every week, which is simply a function of my entirely secular, atheist values. I do not deny that religious belief is often a positive motivator, but it is not the only one, as Land seems to think. It is also undeniable as that religion is a huge source of trouble, intolerance and conflict.
PS: Abolitionists may have been religious, buit so were the people who used the Bible to justify slavery. So it's a wash.

Dr. Land's arguement is weak at best as he makes straw arguements.

I have seen how the "leaders" of organized religion live and it ain't bad by a long shot.

The thing is that leadership is a quality, not a position; and, many "religious leaders" are sorely lacking.

Mike

Where do they dig these people up?

Did he even read the book?! Hitchens talks specifically about the fallacy of associating the dogmatisms of those cultures with the current atheist movements.

Moron.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are, in terms of sheer numbers, the greatest philanthropists in the history of humanity, and I haven't heard either of them speak a word about God. End of discussion.

I'm with the commenter above regarding On Faith--it's a waste and I'm fairly certain this will be my last visit. It's just a platform for extremists to take sensationalist potshots baiting atheists, pagans, Muslims, etc. There's already far too much religion in the public sphere without the Post promoting it.

A atheist's prayer...

Dear God, O Almighty Father, you who art so large and omnipotent,

Please kill the "On Faith" section of the Washington Post. Squash it. Kill it dead. And leave no fossil record of it in the archives.

It is the most unreasoned and therefore unreasonable thing in the paper. We beseech you: use your divine powers to bring back the Enlightenment.

Amen.

The man is either an outright liar or just another snake oil salesman that does not follow history or the Bible,oh its Richard Land,the war monger and anti-Jesus, pusher of war,nutty rightwing ideology and division,he is both!The truth is that Hitler often proclaimed his own Christianity, how much he valued Christianity, how important Christianity was to his life, and even how much he was personally inspired by Jesus - his 'Lord and Savior.'The Nazis used God and the church to push their propaganda and lies,just like the czar of Russia did,which brought on the backlash and revolution against the czar's criminal regime that killed and enslaved millions!And Stalin( like Mao) used Communism to set up his disgusting cult of personality,they were not socialists,they were murderous dictators that used and abused anything and anyone to gain and retain power!Just like Richard Land and George Bush use Religion now,for war,power,partisan politics and money--all anti-Christian,anti-Jesus and anti-Humanity!

Anybody who lives in the South knows Southern Baptist clergy are some of the most craven opportunists out there.

The Southern economy stinks.

Now, courtesy of Chimp-in-Chief's 'faith based' boondoggles, religious 'charity' work has a bottomless taxpayer shot-in-the-arm that even 15th century Popes might envy.

Yeah, I'll bet Land's enthusiastic about charity work. All the way to the bank.

What kind of car do you drive Land?

Absence of delusion is the only thing atheists have in common with each other that they don't have in common with believers. Atheism is not an organizing principle, so there is no reason for them to get together to do anything other than to protect themselves from being force-fed others' delusions. Atheists make significant contributions of all kinds - they just don't have to get together to do it.

I think that many have already demonstrated that there are numerous groups and organizations not based on faith that do perform charitable works.

With that said, I find one point raised by Mr. Land unadressed. Religion is a complex entity that is neither "all evil" or "all good".

Mr. Hitchens raises very real and valid points about many shortcomings that have occurred throughout history in the name of religion, but Mr. Land also rightly points out very real and valid points about the good works and inspirational events that have occurred in the name of religion as well. No one view fully defines religion.

I have always believed that the dialogue should be less about defining religion as a "great evil" or an "all encompassing good", but more about how to realize those worthy aspects religious inspiration that does bring about social good and how to better address the issues Hitchens raise in order to better our world.

We're in this together people.

Posted by: Mr B | September 28, 2007 11:37 AM

Well done Richard Land, you've certainly held to the point that Christopher Hitchens was making. Now if you could just do something about it? Repent maybe!

I think that many have already demonstrated that there are numerous groups and organizations not based on faith that do perform charitable works.

With that said, I find one point raised by Mr. Land unadressed. Religion is a complex entity that is neither "all evil" or "all good".

Mr. Hitchens raises very real and valid points about many shortcomings that have occurred throughout history in the name of religion, but Mr. Land also rightly points out very real and valid points about the good works and inspirational events that have occurred in the name of religion as well. No one view fully defines religion.

I have always believed that the dialogue should be less about defining religion as a "great evil" or an "all encompassing good", but more about how to realize those worthy aspects religious inspiration that does bring about social good and how to better address the issues Hitchens raise in order to better our world.

We're in this together people.

I've been an atheist eversince Sep 11 2001.
It made me realize that religion really is not just silly, but dangerous in the extreme.
Before this,I was uninterested in religion,but felt that generally it was a force for good,even if kind of illogical.
But Sep 11 did it for me.Enough already with the silly skygods,who live,if anywhere,inside our heads.

There's a big difference between reality and the supernatural ideas of religion.Reality is real,the supernatural is make believe.

Teaching children to believe in ghosts,and spirits,and gods, and a heavenly paradise amongst the clouds where good people go after death,is outrageous.
Suicide bombers and other religious folk may believe that nonsense,but not me,or my kids.

Very few "Christians" in the BUSINESS take vows of poverty and vow to live their lives in "service" of others. Most live in VERY NICE houses, drive VERY NICE cars, and make PLENTY OF MONEY. Some Christian religious leaders have no problem taking money from those who can ill afford to give, such as the elderly. Mother Theresa, arguably the most famous Christian to take a vow of poverty and devote her life to others, lived most of her life without sensing the presence of God in her life. HOW TRAGIC. Religion is a farce. Much more good can be done by acceptnig reality and dealing with it as is. Those people who think that Jesus helps them win football games, or Emmys or WHATEVER, are incredibly arrogant. The world doesn't revovlve around YOU. Think about it.

My question to you is this. Name an athiest who has killed another person in the name of atheism? Now, think of all the people who have been killed by Christians in the name of their religion. There you have a virtual blood bath. There is no comparison. Religion is a crutch that has outlived its usefulness and is quickly becoming the force that will cause the extinction of our species.

I think that many have already demonstrated that there are numerous groups and organizations not based on faith that do perform charitable works.

With that said, I find one point raised by Mr. Land unadressed. Religion is a complex entity that is neither "all evil" or "all good".

Mr. Hitchens raises very real and valid points about many shortcomings that have occurred throughout history in the name of religion, but Mr. Land also rightly points out very real and valid points about the good works and inspirational events that have occurred in the name of religion as well. No one view fully defines religion.

I have always believed that the dialogue should be less about defining religion as a "great evil" or an "all encompassing good", but more about how to realize those worthy aspects religious inspiration that does bring about social good and how to better address the issues Hitchens raise in order to better our world.

We're in this together people.

Land suggest that atheists don't give to charitable organizations, volunteer their time or make sacrifices for the good of humankind. No atheists fought in WWII, no atheists fought in the Revolution, no atheist were committed to ending Soviet communism, please!? Nothing could be farther from the truth. Just because atheists don't "give" under the rubric of religion does not mean they don't give at all. Nor does it mean they don't give to faith based relief and social justice organizations. The rank and file population of atheists and agnostics, at least the ones I know, have very little in common with Hitchens and his world view. For me, being an atheist simply means having one less reason to discriminate against my fellow humans. Land, and religious folks in general, need to get over themselves.

Very few "Christians" in the BUSINESS take vows of poverty and vow to live their lives in "service" of others. Most live in VERY NICE houses, drive VERY NICE cars, and make PLENTY OF MONEY. Some Christian religious leaders have no problem taking money from those who can ill afford to give, such as the elderly. Mother Theresa, arguably the most famous Christian to take a vow of poverty and devote her life to others, lived most of her life without sensing the presence of God in her life. HOW TRAGIC. Religion is a farce. Much more good can be done by acceptnig reality and dealing with it as is. Those people who think that Jesus helps them win football games, or Emmys or WHATEVER, are incredibly arrogant. The world doesn't revovlve around YOU. Think about it.

My question to you is this. Name an athiest who has killed another person in the name of atheism? Now, think of all the people who have been killed by Christians in the name of their religion. There you have a virtual blood bath. There is no comparison. Religion is a crutch that has outlived its usefulness and is quickly becoming the force that will cause the extinction of our species.

To answer Land's question, "Where are the great atheist-sponsered charitable and reform movements?" you must count all secular charitable organizations. Atheism isn't a club you join; It's merely the fact that you haven't joined one of the god clubs. So any non-religious based charity - any organization that strives to do good for the sake of doing good - is consistent with 'the great atheist sponsered' charity. So the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Lance Armstrong Foundation are just a couple of examples that come to mind.

In a healthy world where common sense and rational thought prevail it is not necessary to take vows of poverty and perform sacrificial service. In a rational world it's citizens would share the burden of taxes needed to bring the less fortunate to a higher standard of living. Basic humanitarian concern would act as the motivation for "good" deeds. Humanists volunteer to help today. God is not the source of our caring thoughts. Common sense, empathy and willingness to share are not Christian virtues -- they are the virtues that spring from humans in an attempt to prolong our species.
A society willing to reduce it's material pleasures in return for providing health care and security to it's citizens is a healthy society. A society whose members claim religious guidance but fight taxes, condone war and offer demeaning charity to the poor is a sick society driven by greed and dogma. These negative behaviors spring from self centered righteousness promulgated by religion. I don't help my neighbor because of God. I help because the neighbor needs help. It doesn't feel like a sacrifice

Well, Reverend Land, I give to many charitable organizations, both religous and otherwise. Tell me since I am a non-believer, should you all refuse to take my money? Should I give only to UNICEF, Docters without Borders or SHARE?

Mr. Land-
I am not an atheist (I am a jew), but I must point out major gap in your reasoning. Our country is filled with thousands of social service agencies, hospitals, orphanages, charities, and other organizations dedicated to the service of humanity that are not affiliated with any church or religion. That none of these are specifically organized by atheists simply reflects the reality that "atheism" is not an organized religion or other form of organized movement. Asking "where are the great atheist-sponsored charitable and reform movements?" proves nothing. An inquiry grounded in reality would ask "where are the non-religious charitable and reform movements." Answer: they are EVERYWHERE. And they are staffed by the religious and non-religious alike, in recognition that one need not overtly invoke g-d in the service of humanity.

Atheists seem not sophisticated enough to understand the principles of organized begging of the organizations that employ people in voluntary poverty as a profitable profession for the management enjoying the profits as usufructs. Nor do most atheists seem to be aware of the principle of sufficient explanation of any causation (i.e.,If you have to start somewhere in your history, it has to be arbitrary, so you might as well posit a creator along a finite scale as your starting point!), nor that human language works to direct us to social agreement based on symbolic, ideal expressions. Still, we have no reason to conclude that some kind of Supreme Entity hears our cries of distress at our final moment of life. We can't prove at least that any one other than us hear our prayers. And everything we can prove to be true about the real Universe tells us that the Atheists are right. But everything we can prove true about human society tells us that they are wrong. Could we organize ourselves in any socially orderly way without agreeing to the working hypothesis that we all have a single Divine Origin, at least for reasons of good faith investment of our time, our work, our affections? Authority counts for something for most of us, whether there is anyone really invoked when we conform our behavior to its injunctions. Not only do we not have any historical examples of civilizations with a historical hypothesis that they were created by a Demon, but anarchy fails us because it has no authority to organize itself into a political power authorized to impose conformity of social behavior. Anarchy has no historical starting point for building a collective, social sense of destiny.

Vows of poverty? I admire the monks in Burma who take vows of poverty and lay down their lives for the liberty of their people at the hands of the most oppressive government on earth. Perpahs Mr. Land, who by all appearances has NOT taken a vow of poverty, could join the monks in Rangoon and put his (estimable) money where his mouth is, shoulder to shoulder with people of faith who have earned the admiration and respect of the entire world.

Atheists are not and will never be organized the way religious people are. Organizing an atheist reform movement, selecting leaders and establishing an atheist mission would defeat the point of being atheist.

That is not to say Godless people are incapable of decency (or heinousness). I personally know atheists who have enlisted in the Peace Corp, worked for non-profit environmental groups and volunteered at homeless shelters.

I think the rule is: if you witness or participate in an act of kindness and the giving party does not proclaim their faith, preach their religion or attempt to convert the beneficiary, consider that an act of secular morality.

It is interesting that a Christian religious business tycoon would make stupid statements like Land did. Charity among Christians is hard to come by unless in some rare instance you are one of them. To those who may be different from fundamentalists like Land, there is no chariety--
not much reasoned analysis either.

It is interesting that a Christian religious business tycoon would make stupid statements like Land did. Charity among Christians is hard to come by unless in some rare instance you are one of them. To those who may be different from fundamentalists like Land, there is no chariety--
not much reasoned analysis either.

It is interesting that a Christian religious business tycoon would make stupid statements like Land did. Charity among Christians is hard to come by unless in some rare instance you are one of them. To those who may be different from fundamentalists like Land, there is no chariety--
not much reason analysis either.

It is interesting that a Christian religious business tycoon would make stupid statements like Land did. Charity among Christians is hard to come by unless in some rare instance you are one of them. To those who may be different from fundamentalists like Land, there is no chariety--
not much reason analysis either.

The fact that, at times, religion can be used as a vehicle for organizing good works, is not evidence of the supernatural. And the assertion, unfounded, that secularists do no good works is preposterous.

An example of masochistic thinking, Land can only attribute good works to God's work and bad works to humans. Somehow, it never crosses his mind that humans are capable of both by nature.

Land seems to be saying, if you believe in a god and do good, that proves there must be a god.

As to his questions, "where are the atheist leaders doing such or so? That is like asking where are the gay generals and admirals and senators. Atheism, like homosexuality, has been so disparaged by the fundamentalist religious community -- like the Baptists -- that it is little wonder that atheists who do good works see no reason to publicize their personal beliefs any more than leaders who are gay, who have historically been reticent to publicize their sexual orientation.

Land's entire proposition is based on fundamentally flawed assumptions and flawed logic.

MLK was NOT a Southern Baptist. For a Southern Baptist like Land to cite MLK is the height of revisionism.

It is interesting that a Christian religious business tycoon would make stupid statements like Land did. Charity among Christians is hard to come by unless in some rare instance you are one of them. To those who may be different from fundamentalists like Land, there is no chariety--
noy much reason analysis either.

Atheism = not a religion. But many of its 'adherents' do follow the Golden Rule...

Any other question, 'Dr.' Land?

For those who brag about christianity's place in stopping the american enslavement of africans, remember that christianity was also used to justify it. Remember that slavery exists throughout your old testament, that your bible even provides rules and regulations for how you - as a slave, are to behave towards your master.

And then there's the appeal-to-nazi. since communist goverments were secular, all things secular are communistic.

Remember, a religious true-believer, a political true-believer ... from the point of view of this atheist they are suffering from the very same mental illness. The content of your religion vs the content of some communist's political idealogy - these are simply implemenation details. You're both quite sick.

This is always so typical of the religious. no wonder you've been so well-fooled by these myths, you are not capable of refuting them with logic because you do not know what logic is.

I'm a Roman Catholic who's lurked on this "conversation" for about 4 months, and regardless of my views about Richard Land the Baptist Convention, I'm consistently shocked by the shrill, sweeping, hateful generalizations expressed by atheists against religion here (generalizations that people of faith don't make among non-believers).

To somehow leap from reasonable discussion about whether or not religious institutions serve a public good to characterizing all people of faith, their leaders, and their creeds as evil, stupid, propaganda in cahoots with Nazis is quite a statement about the tendency of the views among Post readers on this topic.

The fact that, at times, religion can be used as a vehicle for organizing good works, is not evidence of the supernatural. And the assertion, unfounded, that secularists do no good works is preposterous.

An example of masochistic thinking, Land can only attribute good works to God's work and bad works to humans. Somehow, it never crosses his mind that humans are capable of both by nature.

Land seems to be saying, if you believe in a god and do good, that proves there must be a god.

As to his questions, "where are the atheist leaders doing such or so? That is like asking where are the gay generals and admirals and senators. Atheism, like homosexuality, has been so disparaged by the fundamentalist religious community -- like the Baptists -- that it is little wonder that atheists who do good works see no reason to publicize their personal beliefs any more than leaders who are gay, who have historically been reticent to publicize their sexual orientation.

Land's entire proposition is based on fundamentally flawed assumptions and flawed logic.

The fact that, at times, religion can be used as a vehicle for organizing good works, is not evidence of the supernatural. And the assertion, unfounded, that secularists do no good works is preposterous.

An example of masochistic thinking, Land can only attribute good works to God's work and bad works to humans. Somehow, it never crosses his mind that humans are capable of both by nature.

Land seems to be saying, if you believe in a god and do good, that proves there must be a god.

As to his questions, "where are the atheist leaders doing such or so? That is like asking where are the gay generals and admirals and senators. Atheism, like homosexuality, has been so disparaged by the fundamentalist religious community -- like the Baptists -- that it is little wonder that atheists who do good works see no reason to publicize their personal beliefs any more than leaders who are gay, who have historically been reticent to publicize their sexual orientation.

Land's entire proposition is based on fundamentally flawed assumptions and flawed logic.

I recognize the value of religion in taking on local social issues.

Although in one response, Warren Buffet according to his Wikipedia entry is known to be an agnostic and he has made the single largest philanthropic contribution of 30 Billion Dollars in history to the charitable causes of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

The fact that, at times, religion can be used as a vehicle for organizing good works, is not evidence of the supernatural. And the assertion, unfounded, that secularists do no good works is preposterous.

An example of masochistic thinking, Land can only attribute good works to God's work and bad works to humans. Somehow, it never crosses his mind that humans are capable of both by nature.

Land seems to be saying, if you believe in a god and do good, that proves there must be a god.

As to his questions, "where are the atheist leaders doing such or so? That is like asking where are the gay generals and admirals and senators. Atheism, like homosexuality, has been so disparaged by the fundamentalist religious community -- like the Baptists -- that it is little wonder that atheists who do good works see no reason to publicize their personal beliefs any more than leaders who are gay, who have historically been reticent to publicize their sexual orientation.

Land's entire proposition is based on fundamentally flawed assumptions and flawed logic.

I question the motives of the religios in building orphanages and wonder if it isn't a successful effort to add to their numbers by surrogate parenting and the incumbent indoctrination. Humanitarians may be less-inclined toward the own-and-indoctrinate model of an orphanage, and be attracted instead to providing for the needs of suffering families in-situ. I can assure you, having lived in multiple orphanages, and being the child of a parent raised in an orphanage, that many of the children have parents, but see the orphanage as a solution to trauma in their own families (often illness-related poverty) etc ...

Humanists might tent to treat the cause, while the religious may be greedy for the opportunity to replace the parents beliefs with their own.

I'm a Roman Catholic who's lurked on this "conversation" for about 4 months, and regardless of my views about Richard Land the Baptist Convention, I'm consistently shocked by the shrill, sweeping, hateful generalizations expressed by atheists against religion here (generalizations that people of faith don't make among non-believers).

To somehow leap from reasonable discussion about whether or not religious institutions serve a public good to characterizing all people of faith, their leaders, and their creeds as evil, stupid, propaganda in cahoots with Nazis is quite a statement about the tendency of the views among Post readers on this topic.

The fact that, at times, religion can be used as a vehicle for organizing good works, is not evidence of the supernatural. And the assertion, unfounded, that secularists do no good works is preposterous.

An example of masochistic thinking, Land can only attribute good works to God's work and bad works to humans. Somehow, it never crosses his mind that humans are capable of both by nature.

Land seems to be saying, if you believe in a god and do good, that proves there must be a god.

As to his questions, "where are the atheist leaders doing such or so? That is like asking where are the gay generals and admirals and senators. Atheism, like homosexuality, has been so disparaged by the fundamentalist religious community -- like the Baptists -- that it is little wonder that atheists who do good works see no reason to publicize their personal beliefs any more than leaders who are gay, who have historically been reticent to publicize their sexual orientation.

Land's entire proposition is based on fundamentally flawed assumptions and flawed logic.

The fact that, at times, religion can be used as a vehicle for organizing good works, is not evidence of the supernatural. And the assertion, unfounded, that secularists do no good works is preposterous.

An example of masochistic thinking, Land can only attribute good works to God's work and bad works to humans. Somehow, it never crosses his mind that humans are capable of both by nature.

Land seems to be saying, if you believe in a god and do good, that proves there must be a god.

As to his questions, "where are the atheist leaders doing such or so? That is like asking where are the gay generals and admirals and senators. Atheism, like homosexuality, has been so disparaged by the fundamentalist religious community -- like the Baptists -- that it is little wonder that atheists who do good works see no reason to publicize their personal beliefs any more than leaders who are gay, who have historically been reticent to publicize their sexual orientation.

Land's entire proposition is based on fundamentally flawed assumptions and flawed logic.

This is typical of the smugness of the self-proclaimed believers. Belief is not a prerequisite for doing good deeds, nor is a public declaration drawing attention to the deeds. Many non-believers do extraordinary good work quietly and without pontificating that their way is the only true path.

The fact that, at times, religion can be used as a vehicle for organizing good works, is not evidence of the supernatural. And the assertion, unfounded, that secularists do no good works is preposterous.

An example of masochistic thinking, Land can only attribute good works to God's work and bad works to humans. Somehow, it never crosses his mind that humans are capable of both by nature.

Land seems to be saying, if you believe in a god and do good, that proves there must be a god.

As to his questions, "where are the atheist leaders doing such or so? That is like asking where are the gay generals and admirals and senators. Atheism, like homosexuality, has been so disparaged by the fundamentalist religious community -- like the Baptists -- that it is little wonder that atheists who do good works see no reason to publicize their personal beliefs any more than leaders who are gay, who have historically been reticent to publicize their sexual orientation.

Land's entire proposition is based on fundamentally flawed assumptions and flawed logic.

An acquaintance of mine once said, "you do so many good things, you are a Christian and don't know it!"

That is the mind set of people who cannot fathom that you don't need God or religion to have empathy and do good deeds.

It appears to be the mindset of Richard Lands.

Believers don't know any better, because they cannot see beyond their belief.

I'm a little late to this conversation, but Dr. Land really ticks me off. As a recovered Southern Baptist, I'm very familiar with the willful ignorance on display in his article. Nazi Germany and fascist Italy and Spain all relied heavily on Christianity and Christian institutions to both promote and defend their abhorrent ideologies and, ultimately, their dictatorial regimes. Buddhism is a fundamentally atheistic religion, yet is extremely peaceful and charitable. Further, as other comments have noted, there are many secular, even atheist, charitable organizations which provide very good services to those in need.

I am not an atheist personally, and disagree with Hitchens's view that all religion is, in a word, bad. But 180-degrees of wrong ain't right. As with virtually everything, the truth is somewhere in between.

The difference between those who hold secular and those who hold non-secular beliefs is in how beliefs are arrived at. The secularist approach involves proposing an hypothesis and finding evidence, by experiment or otherwise, to support or disprove it. In contrast the religious approach is to seek truth from sacred texts, either directly or by interpretation, or by revelation (revealed truth).

To help us decide which of these two methods we should prefer to see taught in our schools it is helpful to compare the results achieved since the Bible was written almost two thousand years ago.

The secular method has:
- Explained the position of the sun in our solar system and the trajectories of the planets around it.
- Explained the relationship between gravity, space and time.
- Explained the movement of continents over millions of years.
- Explained the formation of the earth’s major geological features.
- Described the structure of matter to the most extraordinary level of detail.
- Explained the bizarre behaviour of matter at the quantum level.
- Explained how species arise and adapt to changing habitats.
- Explained the rules of heredity.
- Explained how DNA encodes organisms’ characteristics to the level of individual atoms!
- Explained the fundamental forces that hold the universe together.
- Explained how bacteria and viruses affect health.
- Explained in exquisite detail how cells functions.

Of course, this is a tiny, tiny fraction of the things we now understand thanks to the secular approach to establishing beliefs. But now lets move on to the non-secular approach…err… umm. Well, I apologise but I cannot think of a single thing that this approach has added to the sum total of human knowledge. Perhaps somebody can help me out?

What I do know is that, in an attempt to defend the integrity of their sacred books, non-secularists have deployed all manner of obfuscation, deceptions and distortions which have the net effect of retarding our understanding of the universe.

With the best will in the world, this really is no contest. I do not wish to see children taught WHAT to think, I wish to see them taught HOW to think

It appears that Richard Land doesn't read the scientific literature regarding the involvment of non-theists in humanitarian causes. In an effort to increase his knowledge, the following brief review of a recent research article (posted on ScienceBlogs.Com, July 31, 2007 9:56 AM, by PZ Myers) is attached for his edification. (url listed at end)
......

DON'T PANIC IF YOUR DOCTOR IS GODLESS

The researcher behind this study is "surprised and disappointed," but I'm neither.

Although most religious traditions call on the faithful to serve the poor, a large cross-sectional survey of U.S. physicians found that physicians who are more religious are slightly less likely to practice medicine among the underserved than physicians with no religious affiliation.

In the July/August issue of the Annals of Family Medicine, researchers from the University of Chicago and Yale New Haven Hospital report that 31 percent of physicians who were more religious--as measured by "intrinsic religiosity" as well as frequency of attendance at religious services--practiced among the underserved, compared to 35 percent of physicians who described their religion as atheist, agnostic or none.

Charity, service, self-sacrifice, generosity, and kindness are human properties, not religious virtues. I wouldn't expect a group of people from a common culture to show much substantial variation in empathy and public service along religious lines.

Despite the fact that he is disappointed in the result, I do have to commend the author for making a positive policy recommendation:

Policy makers and medical educators hoping to increase the physician supply for underserved populations should take these results into account cautiously, said the authors. "No one knows how to select medical students in a way that would actually increase the number of physicians eager to serve the underserved," Curlin said, "but our findings suggest that admissions officials should ignore both the general religiousness of candidates and their professed sense of calling to medicine."

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/dont_panic_if_your_doctor_is_g.php

can u imagine Bill Gates declaring himself atheist and renaming his foundation as "Atheists Charity" ?

"Where are the great atheist-sponsored charitable and reform movements? Where are the atheist children homes and orphanages? Where are the atheist leaders who are taking vows of poverty and giving themselves in sacrificial service to others? ...Religious people are far more generous with their own time and money than secularists..."

I think we need a dose of historical perspective here.

Not all the 'riches of the earth' are monetary; and 'service' can have it's own, very lucrative rewards.

The religious leaders you speak of did indeed gain a great deal -- in the form of social prestige and power -- through these movements and programs.

Most were, and are, overwhelmingly male -- and often took great pains to exclude women from similar opportunities. So much for 'generosity.'

Through their role as 'spiritual leaders,' they gained career opportunities that many would never otherwise have had access to. Most of those positions include a free home, education, food, clothing, sexual access to young women and boys, etc.

This is true of every single organized religion extant.

As far as 'sacrificing to service others' -- there is absolutely no question that religious charity grunt work has historically been borne by women and the very poor, while 'visionaries' bask in the glory.

Mother Teresa was one of the few examples to which you refer who actually did get her hands dirty.

No surprise, she wasn't on a male-designated career path.

Give me a break.

I think Dr. Land is missing an important point here.

Atheism is not organized and is not an institution. Church-inspired and church-led programs do all of the things he listed and more, but comparing this to individual acts of conscience is misleading.

Atheists are as difficult to define as people of faith because we are talking here about the dictates of the conscience. Thus we have that old division so common in the social sciences: structure versus agency. Land wants to talk structure and Hitchens, unforunately, is mixing structure with agency.

What is lost here is the relationship between moral choice, ethics and human understanding in the absence of a compelling faith in God. That is what really needs to be addressed and in this, they both fail.

For those on both sides of this issue -- here's a link to a review of Hitchens's book by Dr. Andrew McCarraher.

http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=1962

McCarraher respond to several of the assertions Hitchens makes in his book.

It would be nice if the Post would ask theologians to reply to the writings of the agnostic/atheist authors. The level of debate might take a step upwards.

You will find many atheists who have and are, without fanfare, given/giving up the high salaries of business or virtually any other profession (taking vows of poverty) in order to work in education (giving themselves in sacrificial service to others). They just don't draw attention to their dedication all the time.

This latest article seems like the most recent stream of a pissing match..."Religion has sparked conflict and boodshed!" "Well...uh...religious people are more generous!" And so on.

To reiterate the thoughts of another poster, can Land in fact refute, or at least respond to, Hitchens' claims?

To respond to Land's questions to Mr. Hitchens: first, define a "great" charity. Is it one that collects a particular amount of money? Is it one that successfully does the above, while promulgating a particular ideology? Were there to appear a charity that outdid, in its measurable efforts, every known faith-based charity combined, would Land consider it "great?"

Second...unlike religious institutions, atheists, and my fellow pseudo-deist-agnostic types, do not (generally) organize, have meetings, or form non-profit non-faith-based institutions. So assuming that Land's closing quote was intended as a statement of fact, rather than a somewhat childish barb, how exactly would one go about tabulating who is manifestly "more generous" in the first place?

Third...to carry the aforementioned pissing match to another degree, where are the great religious scientists, researchers, physicists, engineers?

Benjamin Haag

I am sorry, sir, but your argument is seriously flawed. Hitchens did not "condemn all religious expression", he condemned RELIGION.

Furthermore, fascism, Nazism and communism, were NOT secular, they were religions onto themselves in a cult of personality and in all those cases atrocities were carried out in their name as they have been in the name of God and/or RELIGION.

Moreover, the many examples of the "noblest expressions of humanity" by people of faith is indeed self evident, as is the enormity of hatred and violence leveled upon them in exponential proportion by the religious status quo.

Lastly, I am an atheist and I have been working for a homeless services non-profit for the last 9 years as have millions of others in the world. Millions of atheists have and do work for civil rights just as people of faith do. The difference is that atheists who do good do so for the self evident, personal belief that it is the right and just thing to do without the necessity of a BOOK or institution to tell them so.

There are good people of all faiths [personal or religious], colors, sexes, sexual/gender orientations and every other human manifestation. The goodness lies within the person.

RELIGION, as an institution and doctrine, and in its many incarnations has largely been the root of most wars in all human history, because it is these people, like you, who constantly pit us all against one another instead of bringing us together in our commonality.

Land's point is not so much an ad hominem attack as a relative defense of the good done by the religious and religious organizations. That good would be done, to paraphrase another respondent, even if there were no God.

The intellectual basis of most atheism is science-a pretty compelling discipline but one whose definitive challenges to millenium-old beliefs are roughly a century and a half old. It's not reasonable to expect the tiny minority of atheists to compete with believers in the US in charitable works.

There are a sizeable number of orphanages and other "charitable" institutions in atheistic China- so Land's insinuation that religious belief is necessary for their existence isn't true. All that is needed is social responsibility (even if it is coerced.)

It does not require a belief in God, or the converse.

Rev. Land,

You asked:

"Where are the great atheist-sponsored charitable and reform movements?"

They are USA taxpayers who happen not to believe in God but support the following:

Medicare, Medicare, Social Security Disability, No Child Left Behind programs, HUD, WIC (The supplemental nutrition program for women, infants and children), State Children's Health Insurance Program, known as SCHIP, Food Stamps, Veterans' hospitals and benefits, Federal and state earned income tax credits, FEMA, Peace Corps, America Corps, NEA, Federal, state and local educational programs, Public Schools, Public libraries, etc.

Where are the atheist charities? Why do Christians not understand logic and always use Red Herring arguments? Atheism isn't an organized bureaucracy with money and resources to mobilize as are most churches--it's simply the absence of belief in ancient superstitions for which there is no concrete proof. I'm positive that many fine charitable acts are performed without religious motivation, just because the person performing them wants to help--don't give God credit for what people do. The so-called religious charities are simply human organizations--they might credit God, but people are doing the work--God is simply a fund-raising and recruiting tool. People are giving the money--the motivation inside their minds provides no proof God exists, it only shows they think he does.

Mr. Land,

Good question you ask. Probably the answer is that when atheists do good deeds, they don't spend a lot of time saying they're doing it in the name of athiesm.

"Atheist" is a word religious people use to describe non-religious people, so you can't expect atheists to strongly identify with that label. They just do stuff.

But, here are two examples of atheists who are doing great things in the world: Bill Gates of Microsoft and Warren Buffet, the famed investor. The less famous are the rest of us, volunteering in schools and doing other small things around the edges. We're no less doers of good deeds just because we don't believe in God and don't advertise our deeds.

sure the religious appear to be giving more (cuz they're concentrated and easier to count) but how much of that "charity" ends up in the pockets of the otherwise unemployed hucksters who tell them they should be giving in the first place.

and good to see you could only get four graphs in before pulling a godwin.
here's a tip: atheists are individuals. we don't have a shared ideology beyond no need for fairy tales.

Why are the religious more charitable? Why aren't atheists taking better care of the poor, sick, homeless?

There are many answers, but here are two to try out: Atheism is often threatening to people, so atheists blend, contributing and volunteering to secular and government sponsored events.

Secondly, as Mother Theresa's recently publicized letters suggest, religious life is sometimes about giving up your own happiness to try to help others. Many atheists spend their time and energy on being happy themselves, rather than trying to help others be happy.

Where would we be if everyone in the world really took the time to live life for themselves, putting their happiness honestly and openly first? Christ's suffering is an example to many religious people who see no contradiction in suffering so that others can be happy... happy enough to follow Jesus into suffering.

Excellent questions!

More of them should be asked. Where are the atheists blowing up family health clinics? Where are the atheists hijacking planes to fly into skyscrapers? Where are the atheists forcing fourteen-year-old girls into rape/marriages?

Yes, yes. More questions.

Where are the atheists killing abortion doctors and bombing abortion clinics? Where are the atheists demonizing gays? Where are the atheists using the atheism to justify slavery? Where are the atheists using atheism to justify Jim Crow? Where are the atheists calling the Pope the Anti-Christ? Where are the atheists shooting lesbians in Mississippi? Where are the atheists banning prize-winning plays? Where are the atheists banning books? Where are the atheists justifying stealing Palestinian land on atheist grounds? Where are the atheists justifying strangling Gaza on atheist grounds? Where are the atheists abusing children in atheist schools? Where are the atheists attacking Jews as Christ Killers? Where are the atheists saying American deserved 9/11 for allowing abortion and gays? Where are the atheists forcing atheist statements in the Pledge of Allegiance? Where are the atheists forcing atheist statements on US currency?

Mr. Land's taking credit for civil rights is offensive. The Southern Baptists opposed Dr. King's struggle for civil rights. Something about the Sons of Ham. His Baptists took over 100 years to apologize for justifying slavery on Biblical grounds. And now he has the gall to claim credit for civil right! Stalin would blush at this preposterous and shameless disinformation campaign.

Evidently "thou shalt not lie" doesn't apply to the Southern Baptists.

Oops. Apologies to Dr LAND for calling him Dr Lamb in my last post. I guess I need more coffee...

I agree with you Mr. Richard Land, however, efforts of the religious groups, especially christian religious groups serving in the developing world, are tainted by the fact that they are expecting something in return, such as conversion from their own faith to Christian faith, for the service they render. Do you think that is a service to the God or doing business transaction?

After observing this section for several weeks I offer the following: 1) I don't understand why atheists are particiapnts at all since, by defintition they have no 'faith'. 2) I don't understand why the presumption on both sides is always 'all' as in 'all atheists' and 'all believers (especially Christians)'. If the purpose of this section is to promote discussion, it has failed because the hatred evidenced by both sides is not 'discussion'. If it is to provide a platform for sophomoric diatribes it has succeeded admirably.

You must also look at the union movement if you want to consider a case where secular people have benefited their fellows. Especially Solidarity in Poland. Many NGOs operating nowadays are secular. But, of course, today it is monks in Burma today.

I respect that reason is brought into the debate by atheists, although personally I find it more rewarding to examine religion in its many flavors. Certainly both are central aspects of the human condition.

I guess one can't blame Dr Lamb for his myopic view, seeing the entire world through the prism of his faith. However, were he to actually address Mr Hitchens' question, he would have his answer.

Dr Lamb asks where are the "atheist" hospitals, soup kitchens, whatever. But the real question is this:

Who are the NON-RELIGIOUS entities that offer help to the disadvantaged? D. Edward Farrar provides a short list above. I suggest Dr Lamb start his search there, a search that will expand rapidly.

If Dr Lamb has the fortitude to expand his question beyond the mean parameters of the church-basement soup kitchen, he would quickly realize that SCIENCE itself has done more good for man than all of the soup kitchens combined. Indeed, where would a Xian hospital be without the medicines and technologies developed by science? Those medicines and technologies were developed through good old HUMAN intelligence, and without help or solutions from some invisible sky god. The scientists who developed them didn't do so to glorify an imaginary deity. They did it because it was their job.

Dr Lamb's challenge is a bit like averring that stamp collectors help the adhesive industry by purchasing lots of glue, and then asking what the a-collectors are doing to help the glue industry, never realizing that a-collectors may well include the crew at the envelope factory down the street...or acknowledging the non-religious work of scientists developing new glues to be used by those stamp collectors.

I guess one can't blame Dr Lamb for his myopic view, seeing the entire world through the prism of his faith. However, were he to actually address Mr Hitchens' question, he would have his answer.

Dr Lamb asks where are the "atheist" hospitals, soup kitchens, whatever. But the real question is this:

Who are the NON-RELIGIOUS entities that offer help to the disadvantaged? D. Edward Farrar provides a short list above. I suggest Dr Lamb start his search there, a search that will expand rapidly.

If Dr Lamb has the fortitude to expand his question beyond the mean parameters of the church-basement soup kitchen, he would quickly realize that SCIENCE itself has done more good for man than all of the soup kitchens combined. Indeed, where would a Xian hospital be without the medicines and technologies developed by science? Those medicines and technologies were developed through good old HUMAN intelligence, and without help or solutions from some invisible sky god. The scientists who developed them didn't do so to glorify an imaginary deity. They did it because it was their job.

Dr Lamb's challenge is a bit like averring that stamp collectors help the adhesive industry by purchasing lots of glue, and then asking what the a-collectors are doing to help the glue industry, never realizing that a-collectors may well include the crew at the envelope factory down the street...or acknowledging the non-religious work of scientists developing new glues to be used by those stamp collectors.

They are everywhere. Contrary to some of the publicity stunts that "atheist fundamentalists" like to pull (e.g. demanding "God" be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance), most atheists just live their lives without going up to everyone wearing a cross around their neck and mocking them. For example, it's non-Christian theists--not atheists--who get knots in their shorts about presumptuously being wished a "Merry Christmas". To the average atheist, "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Holidays" are one and the same. Why get mad if someone gives us a friendly greeting? We aren't threatened if someone prays in our vicinity. We don't hang outside of churches and hand out anti-God propaganda. We don't have posters of Richard Dawkins on our walls.

We do, however, get knots in our shorts when it is implied that our lack of faith is somehow indicative of flaws in our character. There is no such thing as an "atheist religion". We don't have any "rules" that preclude us from participating in charities run by theist organizations. I don't need God to tell me a noble cause is a noble cause.

Have you taken a vow of poverty?
Have you considered that taking a vow of poverty is not a good a thing in terms of providing for others?
Does not the government provide orphanages.

Mr. Land wants to know where the atheist charities are, well here are a few: International Partners(www.internationalpartners.org), a nonprofit that builds schools and trains teachers in rural areas of developing nations. Each year, teens and adults travel to rural areas of Central America on IP-sponsored trips to help build schools and provide basic dental and medical care (some of the adults are licensed physicians and dentists). In addition, members of the Washington Ethical Society are regular contributors of time and effort to the Luther Place shelter for homeless women, the Friends in Action program which teaches self-sufficiency skills to at-risk families, and numerous other charitable programs. These folks are motivated not by the desire to please some all-knowing deity, but rather a belief that in eliciting the best in others, we elicit the best in ourselves. Rather than wallowing in guilt over some concept of mankind's innate depravity, these busy humanists are devoting their lives to eliciting and building on the innate good tendencies that we find in our fellow humans.

you mean like the pope, er no

or the anti semetic and racist billy graham and his multimillionaire son franklin?
er no

or what about er.... oh ,yeah, you Christians don't really serve Christ, you serve your wallet

you mean like the pope, er no

or the anti semetic and racist billy graham and his multimillionaire son franklin?
er no

or what about er.... oh ,yeah, you Christians don't really serve Christ, you serve your wallet

It should be noted that Buddhism--which has arguably the best record on human rights, compassionate action and peace making of any of the major religions--is an atheist tradition.

Why would these institutions of charity have to be labeled "atheist". Atheists aren't a group people looking to promote themselves, these charities and good deeds would still be a part of society if religion was wiped out. Only religious organizations feel the need to stamp their seal on their good deed, an atheist doesn't have to stamp their existential belief on every righteous act he or she does. There's no commercial benefit to atheism, a religion (like any corporation) promotes itself through its good deeds.

Also, you wrote: "Three of the most heinous and barbaric ideologies, which produced the greatest cruelties and violations of humanity in the 20th century, were fascism, Nazism and communism—all secular." How has the political ideology of "communism" been heinous? What does that have to do with anything? Every political discourse has been corrupted and caused great injustices. The doctrine of communism has nothing to do with cruelty. Also, none of the said political doctrines were driven by secular thought. Religion corrupts politics, there is no way to claim that the reason the Nazi's were evil was because they were Atheists. However, I can claim that the Al-Qaeda is murderous directly because of their religious belief. Your argument is very poor.

America has a culture of winning and with this winning culture, it has made America the richest and powerful country in the world.

America excels in science and technology, and has many world class universities. America produces world class doctors, surgeons, scientists, lawyers, accountants, economists and many Nobel prize winners.

The problem with America is that it is a democratic country and that means everybody goes to the voting station to vote. Unfortunately, only a small percentage of the American population is rich and talented. In order to win many votes, these talented American politicians must win the hearts and minds of the people to their side by whatever means.

As we have seen over the past 7 years under the Bush Administration, the way the Bush Administration had won the support of the American people on the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq was by spreading FEAR to the Americans, the Congress and the Senate.

Since the first 6 six years of the Bush Administration, Congress and Senate were controlled mainly by the Republicans, the Bush administration had managed to win enough support to frame and invade Iraq, and torture and kill about 1 million Iraqis.

In 2001, Jerry Falwell said that “Americans must repent” just a few days after 9/11 incident and he was told to apologize. The irony was that Jerry Falwell was protected by the First Amendment and he was forced to apologize on national television for being insensitive to the people who died on 9/11. Jerry Falwell was right about the American people on repentance.

Instead of asking God for forgiveness, G Bush decided to seek revenge. Revenge is not a Christian value but G W Bush convinced himself it was OK to seek revenge and many powerful American Christians support him.

America is a Christian nation and many American Christians have to choose whether they are Christian first or American first. As we can see, American Christians choose to be American first. American Christians behave and acte like the majority Americans, they support the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq. They hate Islam and any country that disagrees with America by calling them corrupt or evil or both.

Christianity and democracy do not mix. Christianity is about love, compassion, mercy, grace and forgiveness.

Mr. Land did not take his line of questioning far enough.

Where are the atheist leaders who hide clerical subordinates that rape children? (cf. the Vatican)

Where are the atheist leaders who are hiring male hookers while preaching intolerance? (cf. Ted Haggard)

Where are the atheist leaders who are teaching their godless congregations that condoms cause AIDS? (cf. the archbishop of Maputo, Mozambique, Francisco Chimoio)

george bush claims to be a religious person, or fanatic.

'Nuff said

Land's question and the implied answer are selective and prejudiced. One could equally ask; where are the atheists (over centuries) who have lead nations and factions against each other in sectarian violence in the name of one exclusionary creed or another; where are the atheists who institutionalized pedophilia; where are the atheist "evangelists" who milked the unquestioning and gullible to enrich themselves in the name of their particular flavor of fantasy; where are the atheists who claim carte-blanche endorsement from an enlightened "god" for their pogroms against heathens, pagans, infidels, unbelievers and every other perceived heresy, however slightly it varies from one's own.

Hitchens is indeed an extremist himself, but at least he is one who has reached his conclusions from repeatable, empirical observation of what is, not an unquestioning submission to some faith-based vision of what might be.

Ms Hawkins:

Do not fall for the 'atheist' conceptual trap -

a + theist = non-theist

- but typically understood as anti-theist, as if that is to wrongfully question the validity of the theist "faith".

You are indeed - & affirmatively! - an ontological naturalist.

The burden of proof in the 21st century is on the anti-naturalist theists.

See my definition comment above.

Atheists don't profess a belief in god (hence the name). So why WOULD you know that someone performing charitable works is an atheist? Should they go around shouting "I don't believe in God!" while ladling out food at a soup kitchen?

Yet for many religious types, professing and spreading their faith is an important part of their faith. Thus proselytizing, prayer, drawing stories from religious tradition or simply reading from religious texts in public are all visible signs. What are the visible signs of the atheist?

BTW: Mr. Land - The Fascist movements? Secular? You did bother to read something about them before making that statement, didn't you?

Mussolini and Franco both declared Roman Catholicism to be the official state religions of Italy and Spain respectively. Clergy became a de facto part of government. Hitler and the Nazis declared "Positive Christianity" to be an official creed for Germany, insisting that it was "true" Christianity unallied with any one established church.

The Fascists were anything BUT secular.

Land's question and the implied answer are selective and prejudiced. One could equally ask; where are the atheists (over centuries) who have lead nations and factions against each other in sectarian violence in the name of one exclusionary creed or another; where are the atheists who institutionalized pedophilia; where are the atheist "evangelists" who milked the unquestioning and gullible to enrich themselves in the name of their particular flavor of fantasy; where are the atheists who claim carte-blanche endorsement from an enlightened "god" for their pogroms against heathens, pagans, infidels, unbelievers and every other perceived heresy, however slightly it varies from one's own.

Hitchens is indeed an extremist himself, but at least he is one who has reached his conclusions from repeatable, empirical observation of what is, not an unquestioning submission to some faith-based vision of what might be.

The great social reform movements of the last half of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century (child labor reform, etc.) were often led by people of deep religious faith, Protestant and Catholic.

Really? More often, they were led by the kind of people that Mr. Land excoriates every chance he gets.

Conservative fundamentalists religions have been on the wrong side of history for as long as there has been history.

Not all fascists are Nazis, but Nazis are fascists. Splitting them up is a cheap rhetorical trick. And they were not secular or atheistic. In fact, they relied on top down structures like the Church or the military.

This is something religious people bring up a lot in arguing against atheism. Why do they say this? What evidence is there for it?

Being an atheist graduate student working in a cancer research laboratory, I would like to note that a disproportionate number of scientists who dedicate their lives to research that may yield life-saving treatments in the public sector are in fact, atheists. To cite wikipedia: A survey conducted between 2005 and 2007 by Elaine Ecklund of University at Buffalo, The State University of New York and funded by the Templeton Foundation found that over 60% of natural and social science professors are atheist or agnostic. When asked whether they believed in God, nearly 34% answered "I do not believe in God" and about 30% answering "I do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out."

After years of observing my post-doctoral peers, I would also argue that this commitment is both giving oneself in sacrificial service to others, and if not a vow of poverty, then at the very least prioritizing the pursuit of knowledge over the accumulation of material goods.

A non-essentialist & non-reductivist but nonetheless historically informative definition of 'religion' would have been helpful - - -

X is a religion if X has at least a majority of the following characteristics: . . . . . . . . .

Otherwise claims about the vices or virtues of religion-as-such or a particular religion are worthless and only invite self-serving defensiveness from the so-called "faithful" of all "faiths", religious & non-religious, naturalist & non-naturalist, X & non-X!

As it was once well put, all of us live by "the substance of things unseen, the evidence of things hoped for", that is, that part of each person's web of beliefs in which we each, respectively, put our ultimate trust, only to be vindicated or not by living by those beliefs.

A while ago someone asked me a similar question. Assuming you are serious about wanting to know where the non-religious go to make charitable donations, here are a few suggestions that I pulled from the web a while back:

* America's Second Harvest: "It is the nation's largest charitable hunger-relief organization, with a network of more than 200 Member food banks and food-rescue organizations serving all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. America's Second Harvest supports approximately 50,000 local charitable agencies operating more than 94,000 programs including food pantries, soup kitchens, emergency shelters, after-school programs, and Kids Cafes. Last year, the America's Second Harvest Network provided food assistance to more than 25 million low-income hungry people in the United States."

* FINCA International: "FINCA International provides financial services to the world's lowest-income entrepreneurs so they can create jobs, build assets and improve their standard of living. FINCA village banking programs provide small loans, a savings program, and technical support for the self-employed poor, helping them to work their own way out of poverty. In 2005, FINCA disbursed over $323 million in loans to more than 375,000 clients worldwide through 22 programs in Latin America, Africa, Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Loans averaged $360, with an on-time repayment rate of 97%."

* Heifer Project International: "Heifer Project International is a humanitarian assistance organization that works to end world hunger and protect the earth. Through livestock, training and "passing on the gift," Heifer has helped seven million families in more than 125 countries improve their quality of life and move toward greater self-reliance. Heifer helps build strong communities because each project participant agrees to pass on the gift of animal offspring, training, or skills to another family in need."

* Kiva: "Kiva lets you connect with and loan money to unique small businesses in the developing world. By choosing a business on Kiva.org, you can "sponsor a business" and help the world's working poor make great strides towards economic independence. Throughout the course of the loan (usually 6-12 months), you can receive email journal updates from the business you've sponsored. As loans are repaid, you get your loan money back."

* Mercy Corps: "Mercy Corp has worked to provide relief and long-term development, strengthening civil society and inspiring the individual courage it takes to overcome poverty, injustice and oppression. Since its inception, Mercy Corps has provided $1 billion in assistance to people in 82 nations. Mercy Corps pursues its mission through: emergency relief services that assist people afflicted by conflict or disaster; sustainable economic development that integrates agriculture, health, housing and infrastructure, economic development, education and environment, and local management; and civil society initiatives that promote citizen participation, accountability, conflict management and the rule of law."

* Oxfam America: "Oxfam America works on the scene, helping people gain the hope, skills, and direction to create a new future. We are also active in the global arena, addressing social injustice through our advocacy, public education, and emergency assistance programs. While Oxfam employs a variety of strategies to achieve our mission, the goal in all our endeavors is the same: to enable poor people to exercise their right to manage their own lives. The specific issues we work on include making a living, natural resources, peace and security, equality for women, indigenous and minority rights, and global trade."

* Pathfinder International: "Pathfinder International believes that reproductive health is a basic human right. When parents can choose the timing of pregnancies and the size of their families, women's lives are improved and children grow up healthier. Pathfinder International provides women, men, and adolescents throughout the developing world with access to quality family planning and reproductive health information and services. Pathfinder works to halt the spread of HIV/AIDS, to provide care to women suffering from the complications of unsafe abortion, and to advocate for sound reproductive health policies in the U.S. and abroad."

* Partners in Health: "Partners In Health's (PIH) mission is to provide a preferential option for the poor in health care. The work of PIH has three goals: to care for our patients, to alleviate the root causes of disease in their communities, and to share lessons learned around the world. Through long-term partnerships with our sister organizations, we bring the benefits of modern medical science to those most in need and work to alleviate the crushing economic and social burdens of poverty that exacerbate disease. PIH believes that health is a fundamental right, not a privilege."

* Planned Parenthood: "Planned Parenthood Federation of America believes in the fundamental right of each individual, throughout the world, to manage his or her fertility, regardless of the individual's income, marital status, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, national origin, or residence. We believe that respect and value for diversity in all aspects of our organization are essential to our well-being. We believe that reproductive self-determination must be voluntary and preserve the individual's right to privacy. We further believe that such self-determination will contribute to an enhancement of the quality of life, strong family relationships, and population stability."

* TechnoServe: "TechnoServe helps entrepreneurial men and women in poor rural areas of the developing world to build businesses that create income, opportunity and economic growth for their families, their communities and their countries. TechnoServe's strategy for generating economic growth in developing countries is based on a market-driven, business-oriented approach. Our strategic management and marketing services include market research, market linkages, business plan development, financial and commercial linkages, supply-chain management, and operational consulting."

I am an atheist. I don't take vows, of poverty or any other kind. But I tell the truth.

I have spent most of my life earning a modest income while devoting myself to the service of others. Just like Jim Baker and Tammy Faye and Al Sharpton and Billy Graham and James Swaggart and archbishops who live in palaces with servants and acolytes, and born again Christians like George Bush and the last two or three Republican majority leaders and Saddam Hussein and the Kings of Saudi Arabia, and Benny Hinn, and the latest defendant convicted as an accomplic to statutory rape in the name of God, God-fearing men and women all, or at least devoted to self promotion and self congratulation.!

Christopher Hitchens is a blowhard and oversimplifies in the service of his diatribes, but your comment is naive, no, not naive, ignorant, smug and insulting, and violates your commandments regarding to bearing false witness, pride and contempt for your fellow humans.

"Where are the atheist leaders...?"
Indeed? I think the answer is there are no atheist leaders. Hitchens, Dawkins, and the others are writers (or philosphers) who are arguing their beliefs. They do not lead a movement in the religious (Pope, Mr. Land, Grand Mufti, Chief Rabbi, etc) or political sense. I think the only thing atheists agree on is the wall between religion and state (something many religious folks see as necessary too). Atheists also make up a very small piece of the population (and are likely outnumbered by agnostics).

A couple of other quibles-- the Nazis were hardly secular. They co-opted the Protestant and Catholic churches (although a few brave believes stood up to them) and tried to introduce some form of paganism on the Germans. Communists were 'secular' in the sense they generally forbid religion (exception: the somewhat co-opted Catholic church in Poland) but if you look at the Soviet and North Korean models you'll see some odd religious type of rituals and orthodoxy that are akin to religious practices.

I am a little suprised Mr. Land points to the abolition movement as his denomination, the Southern Baptists, were ardentatly pro-slavery and pro-Jim Crow. When it comes to slavery religion's record is hardly beyond reproach.

I fail to see how taking a vow of poverty helps the poor (other than increasing their numbers and, hence, voting power). Has Land become a Buddhist and renouced wordly possessions? What good does that do?

I am an atheist. I don't take vows, of poverty or any other kind. But I tell the truth.

I have spent most of my life earning a modest income while devoting myself to the service of others. Just like Jim Baker and Tammy Faye and Al Sharpton and Billy Graham and James Swaggart and archbishops who live in palaces with servants and acolytes, and born again Christians like George Bush and the last two or three Republican majority leaders and Saddam Hussein and the Kings of Saudi Arabia, and Benny Hinn, and the latest defendant convicted as an accomplic to statutory rape in the name of God, God-fearing men and women all, or at least devoted to self promotion and self congratulation.!

Christopher Hitchens is a blowhard and oversimplifies in the service of his diatribes, but your comment is naive, no, not naive, ignorant, smug and insulting, and violates your commandments regarding to bearing false witness, pride and contempt for your fellow humans.

"Where are the great atheist-sponsored charitable and reform movements? Where are the atheist children homes and orphanages? Where are the atheist leaders who are taking vows of poverty and giving themselves in sacrificial service to others?"

Nice strawman argument by a religious fool. So all the charitable work that atheists do individually is meaningless? So all the charitable work that atheists do using a religious organization as a vector must therefore be attributed to those organizations, and not to the kindness of the atheists themselves?

How many of the charitable movements, how many of the orphanages run by religious folk have as core of their existence the desire to convert the people being helped into religious drones? Religious charities are great; just don't kid yourselves into thinking that they aren't looked upon as recruiting tools for the downtrodden. How much of this "charity" has strings attached, as it were?

And while we are at it, how often do atheists stand preaching in front of other atheists and pass the donation plate, then pull a Ted Haggard or a Jimmy Swaggart or a James Bakker? Or, for that matter, a Roman Catholic priest routine and sexually abuse a child?

I am an atheist. I don't take vows, of poverty or any other kind. But I tell the truth.

I have spent most of my life earning a modest income while devoting myself to the service of others. Just like Jim Baker and Tammy Faye and Al Sharpton and Billy Graham and James Swaggart and archbishops who live in palaces with servants and acolytes, and born again Christians like George Bush and the last two or three Republican majority leaders and Saddam Hussein and the Kings of Saudi Arabia, and Benny Hinn, and the latest defendant convicted as an accomplic to statutory rape in the name of God, God-fearing men and women all, or at least devoted to self promotion and self congratulation.!

Christopher Hitchens is a blowhard and oversimplifies in the service of his diatribes, but your comment is naive, no, not naive, ignorant, smug and insulting, and violates your commandments regarding to bearing false witness, pride and contempt for your fellow humans.

I am an atheist. I don't take vows, of poverty or any other kind. But I tell the truth.

I have spent most of my life earning a modest income while devoting myself to the service of others. Just like Jim Baker and Tammy Faye and Al Sharpton and Billy Graham and James Swaggart and archbishops who live in palaces with servants and acolytes, and born again Christians like George Bush and the last two or three Republican majority leaders and Saddam Hussein and the Kings of Saudi Arabia, and Benny Hinn, and the latest defendant convicted as an accomplic to statutory rape in the name of God, God-fearing men and women all, or at least devoted to self promotion and self congratulation.!

Christopher Hitchens is a blowhard and oversimplifies in the service of his diatribes, but your comment is naive, no, not naive, ignorant, smug and insulting, and violates your commandments regarding to bearing false witness, pride and contempt for your fellow humans.

Those who don't believe in any kind of theism are just as moral as those of any religious bent. Morality does not flow from religion. The religious use their moral sense to decide which tenets of their religion to showcase as moral, ignoring those which are not. Mr. Land is doing the same thing here with his list of questions, and trying to avoid the central point of the atheists. The simple answer is that atheists are doing every kind of moral activity that those who believe in supernatural beings (the religious) are doing. They sacrifice for others, they are engaged in donations of their time and energy for the good of others, etc., just as much as the believers of the supernatural are. You often don't know we are atheists for a variety of reasons. Sometimes this is because we have been treated poorly and aggressively by those who believe in supernatural beings (as all religions do).

Sheer nonsense:

1. A large number of brilliant atheists work as scientists for much much less than they could get in business corporations, and these people not only contribute advances to our material well-being but also to our intellectual richness.

2. A visit to the Vatican (or to any tele-avengelist's home) would disabuse you of vows of poverty by people at the top of the religion racket.

3. Soviet communism was explicitly anti-religious, but the Nazis and the Fascists were supported, at least tacitly, by the churches in Germany and Italy.

4. The Southern Baptist Convention was in the fore-front of those pushing for war in Iraq.

It's not so much that atheists/agnostics don't help people, it's a combination of several factors that leads to charitable nontheists being ignored.

First of all, nontheists don't make a spectacle of their charity. We have no one to impress, and we don't need to prove our piety to anyone.

Secondly, nontheists tend to go about a different way of helping people. While your average religious person might devote his or her efforts to combat the symptoms of a problem (hunger caused by poverty, for example), socially active nontheists tend to want to go straight for the root of the problem.

Nontheists, like Eugene Debs or George Orwell, sought to end these problems by attacking their roots. Both we're active in the trade union movements and socialist movements of the early 20th century. George Orwell even went so far as to go and fight in the Spanish Civil War against the fascists who were about to take over.

Where are the RELIGIOUS leaders who are taking vows of poverty and giving themselves in sacrificial service to others?

From what I've seen these last few years, they are sexually assualting children, mostly boys, snorting speed with homosexual prostitutes, building Crystal Palaces in their own honor or air conditioned dog houses for their pets.
Further, sacrificial service almost always means the sacrafice of someone else.

Hypocrites all.

Where are the RELIGIOUS leaders who are taking vows of poverty and giving themselves in sacrificial service to others?

From what I've seen these last few years, they are sexually assualting children, mostly boys, snorting speed with homosexual prostitutes, building Crystal Palaces in their own honor or air conditioned dog houses for their pets.
Further, sacrificial service almost always means the sacrafice of someone else.

Hypocrites all.

As an Atheist with a Catholic wife, raising 3 children in the church, I am often mistaken for a "God fearing Family Man". Too often, those who claim to be religious find it difficult, if not impossible, to believe that someone who is not religious can be kind, generous, or possessing of similar standards of social conduct.

I don't wear my beliefs (or lack there of) on my sleeve. I don't make an issue of it, but neither do I deny it when asked. As many contributors here have stated, because I do not advertise my acts of kindness does not mean they have not occurred. Kindness is not the sole province of the religious. Unfortunately, it is those who are most opposed (a.k.a. afraid) of the non-believers that are the first to suggest that we lack social conscience or possess few of the morals they claim to be essential to a civil society.

Sorry to disappoint you.

Oh, and I genuinely hope you have a nice day.

Where are the RELIGIOUS leaders who are taking vows of poverty and giving themselves in sacrificial service to others?

From what I've seen these last few years, they are sexually assualting children, mostly boys, snorting speed with homosexual prostitutes, building Crystal Palaces in their own honor or air conditioned dog houses for their pets.
Further, sacrificial service almost always means the sacrafice of someone else.

Hypocrites all.

Although Buddhists rarely identify themselves as atheists, Buddhists in general and Zen and Vipassana practitioners in particular subscribe to no theistic creed and worship no deity. Yet there are many Buddhist movements and organizations that serve others and work to alleviate suffering. A short list might include the Karuna Trust, which helped victims of the tsunamis; the Buddhist Peace Fellowship; and the monks and nuns of Plum Village, led by the Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh.

Richard Land falsely claims that atheists do not do selfless service to others. He should learn about a religion called Buddhism (which is 500 years older than his religion and far less violent and intolerant than his religion). For selfless service people like His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh (nomintated for the Noble Peace Prize by Martin Luther King Jr), Aung San Sui Chi, Maha Ghosananda etc. are all devout Buddhist leaders, all just as selfless and giving and impoverished and working for the common good as any Christian-and none of them believe in a theistic God. Buddhism, perhaps the fastest growing religion in the U.S. is filled with examples of practitioners who don't believe in God and go great good.

And yes, many Christians give to charities-if you count giving to their own religious group a charity. Plus, Christians usually do "charity" to get converts, not out of purly selfless reasons.

Lands arguments are shallow and reveal that he knows nothing about atheism or Buddhism.

Richard Land falsely claims that atheists do not do selfless service to others. He should learn about a religion called Buddhism (which is 500 years older than his religion and far less violent and intolerant than his religion). For selfless service people like His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh (nomintated for the Noble Peace Prize by Martin Luther King Jr), Aung San Sui Chi, Maha Ghosananda etc. are all devout Buddhist leaders, all just as selfless and giving and impoverished and working for the common good as any Christian-and none of them believe in a theistic God. Buddhism, perhaps the fastest growing religion in the U.S. is filled with examples of practitioners who don't believe in God and go great good.

And yes, many Christians give to charities-if you count giving to their own religious group a charity. Plus, Christians usually do "charity" to get converts, not out of purly selfless reasons.

Lands arguments are shallow and reveal that he knows nothing about atheism or Buddhism.

Richard Land falsely claims that atheists do not do selfless service to others. He should learn about a religion called Buddhism (which is 500 years older than his religion and far less violent and intolerant than his religion). For selfless service people like His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh (nomintated for the Noble Peace Prize by Martin Luther King Jr), Aung San Sui Chi, Maha Ghosananda etc. are all devout Buddhist leaders, all just as selfless and giving and impoverished and working for the common good as any Christian-and none of them believe in a theistic God. Buddhism, perhaps the fastest growing religion in the U.S. is filled with examples of practitioners who don't believe in God and go great good.

And yes, many Christians give to charities-if you count giving to their own religious group a charity. Plus, Christians usually do "charity" to get converts, not out of purly selfless reasons.

Lands arguments are shallow and reveal that he knows nothing about atheism or Buddhism.

Hmmm, not too many Christians who value voluntary poverty, as far as I can see ... if Mr. Land thinks that vows of poverty are a virtue, then perhaps he should encourage preachers to preach embracing poverty from the pulpit -- let's see how well that goes over! If Christians, who supposedly follow the teachings of Jesus, do not generally value voluntary poverty themselves, why should Mr. Land expect it of atheists who make no such claim about being followers of Jesus? Now what was that saying of Jesus about the speck and the log?

Richard Land falsely claims that atheists do not do selfless service to others. He should learn about a religion called Buddhism (which is 500 years older than his religion and far less violent and intolerant than his religion). For selfless service people like His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh (nomintated for the Noble Peace Prize by Martin Luther King Jr), Aung San Sui Chi, Maha Ghosananda etc. are all devout Buddhist leaders, all just as selfless and giving and impoverished and working for the common good as any Christian-and none of them believe in a theistic God. Buddhism, perhaps the fastest growing religion in the U.S. is filled with examples of practitioners who don't believe in God and go great good.

And yes, many Christians give to charities-if you count giving to their own religious group a charity. Plus, Christians usually do "charity" to get converts, not out of purly selfless reasons.

Lands arguments are shallow and reveal that he knows nothing about atheism or Buddhism.

Hmmm, not too many Christians who value voluntary poverty, as far as I can see ... if Mr. Land thinks that vows of poverty are a virtue, then perhaps he should encourage preachers to preach embracing poverty from the pulpit -- let's see how well that goes over! If Christians, who supposedly follow the teachings of Jesus, do not generally value voluntary poverty themselves, why should Mr. Land expect it of atheists who make no such claim about being followers of Jesus? Now what was that saying of Jesus about the speck and the log?

Yes, vows of poverty to Falwell's big business operation, Dobson, Pat Robertson, The Reverend Ike and the rest of Land's moral exemplars!

Because athiests don't wear their beliefs on their sleaves, you think they don't exist in charitable works? Wow, just wow. Don't know what to say to that. I don't believe in god but I give my time and money to many charities. So if you want to know where athiests are, they are all around you. We just don't advertise our "goodliness" like you feel you need to.

Where are the TV evangelists and mega-church pastors who are taking vows of poverty and giving themselves in sacrificial service to others?

Atheists who do good deeds aren't angling to score points towards the afterlife so there's no motivation to use them for self-aggrandizement. The deeds are ends in themselves. There used to be a lot more atheists with careers in social services before George Bush changed the law that protected us from discrimination. Organizations like the Salvation Army who were previously required to run their charities as secular organizations if they were receiving federal funds promptly distributed questionnaires asking their employees to list what churches they attended, how often, and the names of their clergy, and then purged non-Christians from their ranks. Guess they wanted to make sure that none of those afterlife points were siphoned off by non-Christians. How charitable.

So, am I to assume that Richard Land has taken vows of poverty and is giving himself in sacrificial service to others?

Not to do so, and point a finger at others would be a tad bit hypocritical, wouldn't it?

But not out of character for the self-righteous religious folk I know.

Bill Gates has one of the largest charities in the world, and he is an atheist. Besides, even if no atheist gave to charity, there still would be no God.

What about Doctors Without Borders?

The Society of Friends has no creed, but it does have an excellent record of service to the poor, the enslaved, the imprisoned.

While few Quakers would claim to be atheists, they may be labeled as such by those professing their creeds in loud voices.

Mr Land misses the point of being an atheist. All the things that he accues atheists of not doing are the things that organized religion advocate.
An atheist is anti organized religion. Simple.

Yes, and where are the atheist leaders taking 10% tithes each week from their flock?

Let's be clear about what this is: an ad hominem attack. The level of discourse in "On Faith" (by believers and non-believers alike) is consistently sophomoric. Why can't the Post acknowledge that the "conversation" is a failure?

I'm no fan of Hitchens, but Land is no better here.

Mr. Land, the Fascist movements, including the Nazis, were all closely allied with the traditional power structures of their respective nations, including the Churches. They were most certainly not atheist.

I get so sick and tired of these nice Christians calling me a Nazi...

https://www.americanhumanist.org/secure/humanistcharities.php

Let's be clear about what this is: an ad hominem attack. The level of discourse in "On Faith" (by believers and non-believers alike) is consistently sophomoric. Why can't the Post acknowledge that the "conversation" is a failure?

Let's be clear about what this is: an ad hominem attack. The level of discourse in "On Faith" (by believers and non-believers alike) is consistently sophomoric. Why can't the Post acknowledge that the "conversation" is a failure?

point in fact, Priests do not take a vowel of poverty, however nuns do.

Mother Theresa for starts,

As disclosed in here memoirs, Ms. Theresa accomplished the entire body of her life's work - including many orphanages - all the while doubting the intangible aspects of her church.

Sadly, every attempt to socialize societies - by providing for the weak - has always ended in the enriching-of-the-coercive. The Roman Catholic church is awash in the pennies of the poor, The Soviet (atheistic) governments created many orphanages and provided for its people, but in doing so, they also consolidated power in a central provider-government, and it turns out that such systems are economic and political black-holes.

Perhaps the world needs fair and free economies more than it needs free handouts, and I would submit that freedom exists where people have cast off the restraints - particularly the restraints of an oppressive church, as did Luther (of the enlightenment) the pilgrims, and the founding fathers (of the US Constitution.)

Bill Gates should also be cited as an example of non-religious based charity.

This Atheist refuses to donate to churches but I do volunteer 32 hours a week and donate to the United Way and Americans United For the Separation of Church and State. No brag, just counterpoint.

Ditto what Don Mac Brown says -- there are lots of atheists mingling quietly among the "faithful." That's changing and when more of us come out -- you'll be surprised at how many good works have been done all along by godless atheists.

Mr Land says " As many will remember, the civil rights revolution was supported by and led to victory in large part because of the leadership of clergy, black and white." Yep - and don't forget, centuries of clergy and believers KEPT people in slavery As I recall more than a few Southern Baptists were on what turned out to be the wrong side of the American slavery issue. Fess up, now Rev Land -- it isn't nice for Christians to mislead - or are there special rules when you're defending the faith?

Land can't refute Hitchen so he launches an attack on non-believers. Kind of proves Hitchen's point, doesn't it?

"Where are the atheist children homes and orphanages? Where are the atheist leaders who are taking vows of poverty and giving themselves in sacrificial service to others?"

While I do not speak for Mr. Hitchens, my brief answer to the questions posed is that athiests do not believe that the fate of the children ought to be left to the charity of individuals or individual foundations, regardless whether they are religious or non-religious in nature. A decent society puts in plans and programs in place to address these problems in a systematic and sustained manner. There are many athiests who are involved social causes as there are many religious individuals who are doing good. However, Mr. Hitchen's point on the historical role of individuals remains valid. This post does not address that fundamental issue but rather aims to avoid that issue by the shifting the debate.

Land can't refute Hitchen so he launches an attack on non-believers. Kind of proves Hitches point, doesn't it?

"Where are the great atheist-sponsored charitable and reform movements? Where are the atheist children homes and orphanages? Where are the atheist leaders who are taking vows of poverty and giving themselves in sacrificial service to others?"

There are plenty of secular charitable organizations and plenty of secular orphanages. There are also plenty of atheists who are charitable. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are two of most charitable people in this country. They are not religious.

Granted, the vows of poverty do appear to be tied to religion, though I fail to see the virtuousness in that.

"Where are the great atheist-sponsored charitable and reform movements?..."

This is more an issue of organization. Atheists are not a religion--we're disparate individuals and a very small percentage of the U.S. population. Atheists perform charitable acts all the time, but because we have neither the numbers nor any desire to unite in the first place, one does not see atheist movements of the nature described above.

I would even be willing to bet that many atheists donate time and money to local church charities, seeing these as ideal organizational platforms through which to do good, even if they don't believe in the existence of God.

You don't know where the Atheists are that adopt, that devote their lives to the needs of others, and live a charitable life because they don't ADVERTISE! It's that simple!