Atheist Evangelism

[Ahriman]

i wouldn't mind food pantries so much if they actually gave you food worth eating. But they mostly don't.

[The Grand Nudger]

They can't. They don't have the equipment. It's very important to local business to support worthy charities, but not...you know, in any way that they might succeed. A lesson learned by experience.

[Ahriman]

They can't.  They don't have the equipment.  It's very important to local business to support worthy charities, but not...you know, in any way that they might succeed.  A lesson learned by experience.

Welllll actually, maybe they do, I mean they might, depending where you go, but even the ones that had better equipment didn't give me a whole lot worth eating.

[Angrboda]

So, again, to push a point, religious food charities are not a net positive. 

That is irrelevant to the question as asked, as you've been told several times, to no good effect.

[Ahriman]

So, again, to push a point, religious food charities are not a net positive. 

That is irrelevant to the question as asked, as you've been told several times, to no good effect.

What was the question? Can you reiterate it for me?

[The Grand Nudger]

They can't.  They don't have the equipment.  It's very important to local business to support worthy charities, but not...you know, in any way that they might succeed.  A lesson learned by experience.

Welllll actually, maybe they do, I mean they might, depending where you go, but even the ones that had better equipment didn't give me a whole lot worth eating.

Nope.  Doesn't depend on where you go.  This particular issue is uniform globally.

And, apparently, the question is not whether christian charities do immediate or summary good, as I've answered both. They do neither. Christianity only seeks to exploit such a situation...and it's been that way since the inception of christianity, according to christianity ...though..in fairness, they might not have realized how such an explanation would sound 2k years into their then-futures.

[Deesse23]

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

Fuck a duck. This is bullshit.

Feeding people and preaching to them is preferable to starvation. That does not make it a good thing tho. One thing being preferable to another does.not.make.it.a.good.thing.

Feeding people withOUT preaching (or preying on) to them is even more preferable, and a good thing.

There, wasnt so hard, people, was it?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@The Grand Nudger

I'm curious - when it's supper time at your home, do you feed your kids or hand them the cash equivalent of the food?

Boru

[Angrboda]

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

Fuck a duck.  This is bullshit.

Feeding people and  preaching to them is preferable to starvation. That does not make it a good thing tho. One thing being preferable to another does.not.make.it.a.good.thing.

Feeding people withOUT preaching (or preying on) to them is even more preferable, and a good thing.

There, wasnt so hard, people, was it?

Who said anything about preaching to them?

[GrandizerII]

If a talented person invests their time becoming a preacher or apologist rather than scientist or poet because of the influence of universalist xtianity, that's a harm.

They can do both preacher/apologist and scientist/poet, if they're talented and intelligent enough. Plenty of Christians do. And there are just too many factors to consider that may have influenced one to become solely a preacher/apologist. Maybe if it weren't for religion, they would've just wrote some novels instead.

And sure, you don't see value in one being a preacher/apologist/theologian, but that's subjective. Some people don't see value in being a poet either.

If someone gives money to the church rather than a better cause, that's a harm.

For a lot of churchgoers, church is a big positive for them. And as long as they're not being pressured to donate money, I don't care whether (at the core) it ends up being a philosophical harm for the whole world. We all do things that may end up being a philosophical harm ultimately for the world, but we do them anyway because it benefits us and the people we care about and/or we feel good about doing so. And we should continue to have that right to do what we feel is best.

If fundamentalist xtians draw upon apologetic arguments created by universalists, that's a harm.

If extreme atheists draw upon arguments often raised by atheists against God to justify genocide or some other morally equivalent act, that's a harm also. That doesn't mean atheism itself is bad.

Atheists can suck, but atheism is neutral.  Religion is always false and immoral and harmful in some way.  That's the difference.  The world would be better off without religion.

You keep saying religion is always false and immoral and harmful, but that just comes off as begging the question in favor of your position. It's fallacious. And you also appear to subconsciously keep shifting between "religion in principle is bad" and "particular religions are bad". Which are you intending to argue exactly? Former or latter?

But let's compromise on one idea: the world would be better off with no religion except universalist progressive xtianity.  Fair?

Nope, still skeptical.