This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Atheists Love You. They Just Don't Know Why.

Atheists Love You. They Just Don't Know Why. - Comments

dloubet's Avatar Comment 1 by dloubet

What other response can one offer to this but a common two-word phrase, starting with a four letter word followed by a three letter word, and perhaps a number of exclaimation points?

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:25:00 UTC | #433110

Mette's Avatar Comment 2 by Mette

It is always nice to get a laugh after a long day of work.

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:31:00 UTC | #433113

bigkoala's Avatar Comment 3 by bigkoala

After RTFA realized that I've just, once again, wasted part of my life by reading an argument that is more in keeping with a 3 year old's worldview than that of a reasoning adult. Can't we have a "Warning: time wasting drivel" banner on these types of articles?

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:35:00 UTC | #433114

Dhamma's Avatar Comment 4 by Dhamma

As was expected.

Many of us saw this coming a mile away.

Theists certainly use every opportunity to put us in a bad light.

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:36:00 UTC | #433115

ColdFusionLazarus's Avatar Comment 5 by ColdFusionLazarus

Dawkins, it would seem to me, hasn’t defined his terms and is only borrowing our definition of “good.”

I'm borrowing their dfinition of good? I don't know what their definition of good is.

My definition is the fact that I can imagine the pain someone else is feeling. Others pain sometimes hurts me and I want it to go away.

It starts with "Silence of the Lambs" and works up to some more sophisticated interplays that I call love.

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:42:00 UTC | #433117

Alyson Miers's Avatar Comment 6 by Alyson Miers

Whereas, if we just kept our heads down and didn't tell anyone we were making donations, Matthew Archbold and his fellow godbuggerers would go on trumpeting how believers are so much more charitable and generous than us dirty heathens.

Attention, Matthew Archbold: some of us simply want to know that our charitable donations aren't getting squandered on solar-powered Bibles and that the relief workers getting paid with our donations aren't wasting their time by praying or wasting Haitians' time by proselytizing to them. If it also forces woo-peddlers to wonder if we godless sinners are really as morally inferior as they like to think, so much the better.

http://alysonmiers.wordpress.com/

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:44:00 UTC | #433119

HardNosedSkeptic's Avatar Comment 7 by HardNosedSkeptic

What a patronising and intellectually dishonest man Matthew Archbold is.

Why does he think a god must have invented goodness and kindness? They could easily have evolved, just like everything else about us.

Just ignore him.

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:46:00 UTC | #433121

Quetzalcoatl's Avatar Comment 8 by Quetzalcoatl

Why is other human life worth anything if there is no God?


This kind of comment speaks volumes about the author.

A typical, drivel-filled, nasty article.

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:50:00 UTC | #433122

GodsDontExist's Avatar Comment 9 by GodsDontExist

Dawkins, who has been saying for years that religion is the “root of all evil,” is now oddly intent on proving that atheists can be as good as Christians


Because if that’s true then it would seem that the greatest value of Haitians lives to Dawkins is how they make Dawkins look.


Atheists do not want to be "as good as Christians" because for one, we don't think their doctrine teaches people to be good. It is based on a violent selfish god. Secondly, Dawkins isn't promoting giving to charity as a egoistic ploy, rather, it is simply a progression of a free thinking movement. We need to show people that Atheists are kind giving people. The media and religious people have lead society to think Atheism is bad or of the devil, etc.... It is quite the opposite. The media also cannot wrap it's head around the fact that Atheists have no agenda, so they are always trying to invent one

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:51:00 UTC | #433123

LittleFluffyClouds's Avatar Comment 10 by LittleFluffyClouds

If we give, its a desperate attempt to prove we can be nice without the saving power of Jesus, whom we secretly know exists in our hearts and would begin worshipping if we weren't such arrogant dicks.

If we don't give, its becuase we're arrogant dicks who have lost all human compassion because that comes from Jesus and we don't have Jesus.

Despite the powerful arguments of Matthew Archbold, I feel compelled to give because the Jesus in my heart can't be kept down by my vile, vile intellectual vanity, even if I'm too cowardly to call my kindness Jesus because I'm too afraid of the hell I know I richly deserve.

I secretly want to be a woman and have Matthew impregnate me. Wait. I didn't just think that. Praise jesus.

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:53:00 UTC | #433124

root2squared's Avatar Comment 11 by root2squared

If Dawkins is running this charity to show up religion and helping Haitians is only a secondary consequence then we could hardly claim that what he’s doing is good by most definitions


What a horrible disgusting man. It is quite clear from the NBGA statement that the primary purpose is to help the people in need.

How about "If Catholics are running charities to show up Islam and other religions, to brainwash people with Christianity, and helping Haitians because god told them to do so, then ....oh wait...that is actually what would be good by their definition!"

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:00:00 UTC | #433126

ColdFusionLazarus's Avatar Comment 12 by ColdFusionLazarus

Actually, I don't believe in god. And I give a lot of money to charity ... but I don't like to talk about it.

(I'm not sure any of the above is true)

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:02:00 UTC | #433127

Quine's Avatar Comment 13 by Quine

Comment #452210 by Dhamma:

As was expected.
Yep.

However, now that it is what it is, we should speak out against their argument that, somehow, their deity is actually behind our attempts at "good" works.

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:04:00 UTC | #433128

Lifer's Avatar Comment 14 by Lifer

"Comments are no longer being accepted on this article."

Glad I got mine in before God closed the thread on me.

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:09:00 UTC | #433130

auberginecow's Avatar Comment 15 by auberginecow

Solar powered what now?

Nevermind, I found a link: http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE60I02P20100119?feedType=nl&feedName=ukoddlyenough

Un-freakin'-believeable.

Peace,
Sherri

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:15:00 UTC | #433132

xipasduarte's Avatar Comment 16 by xipasduarte

Funny funny is the fact that they closed the comment submissions! Could it be that they are afraid or maybe there are problems with the system? The least I don't believe so, since other entries still have their comments active. I would say the first is an accurate hypothesis, but lets give them the benefit of the doubt...

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:17:00 UTC | #433133

Alyson Miers's Avatar Comment 17 by Alyson Miers

Why is other human life worth anything if there is no God£


Ah, right: the Argument From No Imagination. "I can't picture anyone believing or thinking differently from me, therefore God!"

It's good to know you wouldn't give a shit about your fellow humans without Yahweh glaring over your shoulder.

http://alysonmiers.wordpress.com

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:27:00 UTC | #433135

Mitch Kahle's Avatar Comment 18 by Mitch Kahle

Richard, I hate to say it, but you asked for this criticism.

Charitable giving is always a secular act, whether it comes from religious or non-religious people.

Whereas prayer and proselytizing are always empty religious activities that may never be considered charitable.

We don't need to identify charity with secular values, the two are synonymous already.

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:29:00 UTC | #433136

chameleonpete's Avatar Comment 19 by chameleonpete

"Dawkins, who has been saying for years that religion is the “root of all evil,”

What a lazy journalist, Richard quite specifically staes in TDG that doesn't think this at all, and wasn't happy with the title of the TV series.

Couldn't be bothered opening the link, if Archbold can't research such easily findable facts, I wont give him the time of day.

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:32:00 UTC | #433137

Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Comment 20 by Adrian Bartholomew

Solar Powered Bibles? Ok I've followed the links above and it looks legit but it just has to be some kind of sick joke right? Right?

OMG I just read the manual for the thing and it doesn't even have a fucking radio in it. That would be too useful? Fuck...

PS. Sorry for the bad language but sometimes it's appropriate.

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:35:00 UTC | #433139

SaintStephen's Avatar Comment 22 by SaintStephen

This comment works in this thread, also.

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:36:00 UTC | #433142

GBile's Avatar Comment 21 by GBile

Wow, an article from a 'catholic' about 'Good'.

A statement from mr. Archbold:

... each man has written on his soul the ability to tell right from wrong


Mr. Archbold shoots a gaping hole in his own foot here, because he admits that no 'holy books', no 10 commandments, no hadith, no church authorities are needed for a woman or man to be good.

And of course Dawkins does not deny that morality is a legacy of our evolution. He has discussed this extensively in his books.

At the end of the article:
There is a moral sense which you can ignore but your choosing to ignore or embrace it has no effect on its existence, much like God Himself.


Well, choosing to ignore or to embrace 'God' has also no effect on his NON-existence.

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:36:00 UTC | #433141

Crazycharlie's Avatar Comment 23 by Crazycharlie

Notice at the end it says comments are no longer being accepted on this article.

It's because they know their website will get inundated with atheist posts telling Archbold that he's full of shit.

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:38:00 UTC | #433144

Jos Gibbons's Avatar Comment 24 by Jos Gibbons

This particular religious piece gets the same reaction from me as all the others posted here in at least one sense, namely my disagreeing with it. I imagine some of the things said by Archbold would be agreed with by some of our non-religious posters, or at least would lead them to a reaction of the form, "While this response is inaccurate, it was inevitable, given NBGA's shortsightedness". Since I am no more convinced by this piece than am I am by religious ones in general, my point by point rebuttal may not get the same reception my long comments often do. But I defend NBGA, so there.

[NBGA is] so atheists can give to relief efforts in Haiti in a way which promulgates their atheism
That would mean they try to make others atheists. What they actually do is self-identify.
[sarcastically] when Haitians receive relief they're very interested in whether it came from a believer
Never mind whether they are interested in knowing it, or whether they end up knowing it. The point of this effort is to show that religion does not have a monopoly on generosity. I can tell from the title this stupid article will claim atheism is incompatible with having good reasons to help others. That such a claim is so often made is the reason behind this initiative.
[RD calls religion] the "root of all evil"
He has explicitly denied that it is that. Channel 4 chose a pointlessly provocative title, to which he appended a question mark because he couldn't get any better a concession from people who like to stir up controversy for ratings.
oddly intent on proving
What's odd about wanting to prove a claim?
atheists seem intent on
Well, some. Group-think is bad whatever form it takes.
I always get a kick out of evangelizing atheists ... [If helping others] is only a secondary consequence then we could hardly claim that what he's doing is good
Does Archbold know the irony in his statements? FWIW I think that, once one has resolved to help others, but chooses the WAY one will do this with some other purpose in mind, it is wrong to describe this other aim as the primary goal, or helping others as secondary.
us religious types like to [give Dawkins the benefit of the doubt]
Name me one time that has happened. We are talking about a man who has been accused of wanting all children of religious parents to be taken into foster care, when what he actually said was that labelling children with their parents' religion automatically is a bad idea. I have never heard any religious person accurately represent Dawkins on that topic. There are many others of which something similar holds. The simple truth is, Dawkins is a figurehead for everything religious spokespeople hate about unbelievers. Every single criticism offered of atheism chooses him and/or one or more other famous atheists as individual targets of mockery, rather than just discussing propositions and the evidence against them.
he's kind of supporting some of our arguments. While Dawkins argues that he can be good without God, I think he's actually only proving that Richard Dawkins can be good while not acknowledging God.
What is the point here in this absurd, upside-down logic? That the other atheists are still guilty until proven innocent? Either atheism renders morality impossible or it doesn't. You can't weasel out of a refutation by saying "except with him". Remember also that, rather than simply being a non-believer doing good, he has set up a fundraising effort that has hard literally thousands of non-believing donors in just a few days. Or maybe the point is the distinction between being without God and ignoring him. You'd better give evidence there is a deity and Dawkins missed him, or you're just asserting unproven nonsense.

Now, remember the prediction I made earlier? It just came true.
I have to wonder from what philosophical grounding does Dawkins' [sic] altruism emanate? Why is other human life worth anything if there is no God? From what philosophical groundwork is he basing his good works on? Dawkins, it would seem to me, hasn't defined his terms and is only borrowing our definition of "good". Because without our definitions he'd have to ask the question, "What is good without God?" And that's something I haven't seen answered yet.
Then you should take a crash course in moral philosophy, which has not only comprehensively answered all these questions with secular responses, but has also explained why God doesn't make things any easier. I shan't rehearse the arguments here; it suffice to say that this author is clearly either ignorant of these facts or else is being deceptive.
Edit: one point I forgot to make is this - if he wouldn't be good without God, then he's truly evil.
In fact, I think Dawkin's [sic] efforts to do good is one of the best arguments for innate knowledge of right and wrong
Dawkins himself maintains such knowledge, if only in an unpolished form, does exist, for very well-understood evolutionary reasons. It is not evidence of an intelligent artificer of such innate morality.
hate to inform
But will anyway
Mr. Dawkins
Acknowledge his PhD, please. We have to say things like "Father" all the time.
while Dawkins denies [innate morality]
That's an absolute lie of the most evil calibre, not to mention the highest.
your choosing to ignore [either innate morlaity or God] or embrace it has no effect on its existence
Neither does making claims either way. So where is the decent attempt to back up the claim that God exists? Evidence, NOW.

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:41:00 UTC | #433147

Alyson Miers's Avatar Comment 26 by Alyson Miers

Perhaps a more accurate title would have been, "Atheists Give a Shit For Reasons I Don't Care to Understand." Still full of projection and blinkerage, but somewhat more honest.

http://alysonmiers.wordpress.com/

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:50:00 UTC | #433150

webg33k's Avatar Comment 25 by webg33k

So let me get this straight, the argument is that this new charitable foundation is not "good" because it tried to compete with religiously based ones? This sort of competition is FANTASTIC, what's the problem. We should all take time out of our day to compete and see who can be the most generous and loving person. Religious or not.

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:50:00 UTC | #433149

MrPickwick's Avatar Comment 27 by MrPickwick

Shopenhauer was right when he wrote that "For, as you know, religions are like glow-worms; they shine only when it is dark". In the darkness anything goes, even the sick rantings of this sick mind.

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:03:00 UTC | #433152

Mr. Stick's Avatar Comment 28 by Mr. Stick

I love the comments at the original site.

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:04:00 UTC | #433153

Logicel's Avatar Comment 29 by Logicel

I guffawed. Oh, was I supposed to be concerned about what a delusional dipshit who supports the rotten-to-the-core Catholic Church thinks of anything? I love that the theists are making a big deal out of this. Theists, keep giving us publicity as there is no such thing as bad publicity. I enjoy their getting riled up, I really do. Little, spoiled, sheltered jerks, the lot of them.

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:05:00 UTC | #433154

lackofgravitas's Avatar Comment 30 by lackofgravitas

After Robertson's remarks, and those of other 'believers' remarks, I am unwilling to read beyond the cut, it will only infuriate me more.

I assume that our Richard Dawkins set up the site to allow us, and others of our unbelieving ilk, to donate, less paypal charges (thanks Richard) and also to inform us that there are secular charities to which we may donate. Anyone else thought the Red Cross was a religious organisation? No? Only me? Maybe it's because in the middle east it's called the Red Crescent. Turns out, the Red Cross is the inverse of the Swiss Flag, no more. I didn't know.

Back on topic though; it seems we're getting back to morality. Do we really have to? It's been done so often, and Robertson and the author of this piece show their colours so dazzlingly, we can't ignore them.

Personally, I give a damn because it's the only human response. I wanted to donate money, scams are rife, some charities spend more than they collect (I work for a charity, so I know of some) and I don't want to give to a 'Mother Theresa' type org. So thanks for the endeavour, and I hope all the money helps in Haiti.

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:13:00 UTC | #433158