Atheist Evangelism

[The Grand Nudger]

I keep saying that it isn't..even though I very much wish it were? That the intuitive answer to this gotcha question is utterly and objectively wrong. I don't know if I can adequately communicate how realizing this as I was trying to do it effected my worldview.

Perhaps that's why the problems persists......

[Angrboda]

I keep saying that it isn't..even though I very much wish it were?  That the intuitive answer to this gotcha question is utterly and objectively wrong.

Perhaps that's why the problems persists......

Why isn't it?

[arewethereyet]

My mother was not then, nor is she now, a Catholic. 

The issue was not living up to socio/economic expectations in my parents' peer group.

Nevertheless, there were also many pregnant women in Ireland where they got abandoned by their Catholic parents and the Church would locked them up in a washery and sold their kids.

I was in Iowa.  I still have the kid...though she's in her 40s now and has a grown kid of her own.

WTAF?!?

[The Grand Nudger]

Because it literally does not work. Because it has the direct opposite of the (purportedly) intended effect. I'm not saying it should, I'm not saying it isn't ludicrous to my mind.

Soup kitchens and direct food aid are not a solution, they're an integral part of maintaining the problem. In the case of welfare queen churches, maintaining the problem for profit.

[arewethereyet]

Starvation is the answer to combat aid offered by religious organizations.

Fuck a duck. This is bullshit.

[The Grand Nudger]

I offered an alternative. Put a union organizing booth at every soup kitchen. I don't think it would solve the problem by getting everyone into a union. I -know- that the interests involved would rather pay a marginally higher wage than negotiate with unions. They would pay a higher wage just to keep you out of the fucking soup kitchen, in that case.

The rcc would be fine. They'd continue to negotiate over the child hostages in their care.

[Angrboda]

Because it literally does not work.  Because it has the direct opposite of the (purportedly) intended effect.  I'm not saying it should, I'm not saying it isn't ludicrous to my mind.

Soup kitchens and direct food aid are not a solution, they're an integral part of maintaining the problem.  In the case of welfare queen churches, maintaining the problem for profit.

What about it doesn't work? Hungry man, give food, man eats food, man happy. Seems to work just fine. It may not be the solution to your problem, but that is irrelevant.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, it doesn't seem to work just fine. I wish it did work just fine. Christian charities (and even unaffiliated charities) have framed themselves as a part - if a flawed part, of the solution. They are not. They are a part of maintaining the problem for profit. Impossible situations, intuitively ludicrous solutions.

If you have the appetite for a deep dive, look into the noted failures of a post mortem food aid program. Or, if you really want to depress yourself, start smaller, the problems that food pantries themselves suffer. How they do not in fact even have the ability to feed people and how, insomuch as they do try, they can only feed people shit that will kill them.

[Angrboda]

No, it doesn't seem to work just fine.  I wish it did work just fine.  Christian charities (and even unaffiliated charities) have framed themselves as a part - if a flawed part, of the solution.  They are not.  They are a part of maintaining the problem for profit.  Impossible situations, intuitively ludicrous solutions.

Remember the question asked? I asked about the good independent of tangential consequences. These are tangential consequences. Either you can't read, or you're trying to change the hypothetical.

[The Grand Nudger]

I can't be more explicit Angr. I don't think that any food charity is an actual solution to the problems they purport to solve. There is ample evidence that they have the opposite effect at scale from local to global...even though I really do wish they worked and spent significant time and resources establishing one and working for one. In the parlance of motivated nonprofits, I'm a deconvert.

I, long ago, stopped believing that they were even a local or incendental good that was zeroed out in sum. The minute you're throwing soup cans you are actively working -not- to solve the problem. Not working, in a flawed and inefficient way, to solve the problem. In my defense, I had not realized that, yet, then, lol.

I think that they're a thing we do because it makes us feel better, not because they're good or do good. They do not. Objectively, they do not, though we're apparently willing to give religious versions unearned credibility on account of them.