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

← L.A. atheists helping with Haitian earthquake relief

L.A. atheists helping with Haitian earthquake relief - Comments

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 1 by Ignorant Amos

Nice article....even though it is repetition.

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:01:00 UTC | #433490

godsbelow's Avatar Comment 2 by godsbelow

Okay before this comments section turns into yet another dabate about the merits of NBGA, I'll suggests this:

If we are to demonstrate that non-believers are genuinely altruistic, and that we aren't simply exploiting the present situation to score quick points against the religionists who've slandered us, then the NBGA ought to form the basis of a permanent charity distribution organisation. It needs to out-last the furor over the current disaster and be around for the next one if it is to show that non-believers and humanists are truly every bit as generous as the religious.

Which, of course, we are. But we need to prove that this isn't just a PR stunt, which is of course what our detractors will say.

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:10:00 UTC | #433512

root2squared's Avatar Comment 3 by root2squared


Is that non givers believing in almighty?

But I agree, that is an excellent idea.

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:22:00 UTC | #433515

godsbelow's Avatar Comment 4 by godsbelow

Oops! Bloody acronyms!

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:43:00 UTC | #433524

Dhamma's Avatar Comment 5 by Dhamma

In the short run, I think it hurts us, but perhaps when we've used the same non-religious charities over several disasters, I think it may "help" us. People get so used to it that they don't associate it with trying to make a stance. Though I certainly could be wrong.

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:48:00 UTC | #433543

mmurray's Avatar Comment 6 by mmurray


the NBGA ought to form the basis of a permanent charity distribution organisation.

According to the page that is the intention

Clearly the immediate need is for the suffering people of Haiti, and all the money raised by this current appeal will go to that cause, but the new account will remain available for future emergencies too.

I suspect you are right about that. Once we have through a few more disasters (they seem to come around regularly enough sadly) NBGA will just be part of the charity scene.


Wed, 20 Jan 2010 22:12:00 UTC | #433548

Mitch Kahle's Avatar Comment 7 by Mitch Kahle

An ongoing charitable organization is a very good idea, but Non-Believers Giving Aid is a poor choice for name; NBGA is not even a suitable acronym.

We are secular humanists first and atheist second.

Therefore I'd suggest something like the Secular Aid Society (SAS).

Let's not identify ourselves by what we're not.

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 22:58:00 UTC | #433562

godsbelow's Avatar Comment 8 by godsbelow

mmurray - yeah I got that. My point is that I reckon permanence is essential to showing that this isn't just a publicity stunt. Without it NBGA will just provide ammunition for attacks on atheists by the usual crowd.

Dhamma - I hope you're right!


Wed, 20 Jan 2010 23:42:00 UTC | #433577

mmurray's Avatar Comment 9 by mmurray


OK sorry -- thought you might have missed it. You are right it becoming a part of the charity scene long term is essential.


Wed, 20 Jan 2010 23:53:00 UTC | #433579

Alternative Carpark's Avatar Comment 10 by Alternative Carpark


"SAS" nice.

Our motto could be "Who Gives Wins!".

However, again I question the reference to belief, or, in our case, lack of, into the equation.

I suppose one justification would be to counter the, mostly American (let's not deny it), assumption that us heathens are tight of fist; however, this is not worth the effort.

I think I will stop complaining, though, as doing so is a bit of an insult to the sterling work that the Professor et al have done, selflessly putting this all together.

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:39:00 UTC | #433592

Bremas's Avatar Comment 11 by Bremas

I'm an atheist first and a secular humanist not at all.
But I do like the Secular Aid part... maybe Secular Aid Organization.
Otherwise I'm happy with the name as is.

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:40:00 UTC | #433593

Mitch Kahle's Avatar Comment 12 by Mitch Kahle

Bremas: I'm an atheist first and a secular humanist not at all.

Odd statement, Bremas.

Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchen, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Michael Shermer, Carl Sagan (RIP) are all secular humanists.

Whether or not you use the term, anyone who is atheist, strives to be ethical, and believes in fundamental human rights is a secular humanist by default.

What part are you missing?

I'm guessing 99.99% of RDF regulars (excluding trolls) are secular humanist.

Atheist says nothing about who we are...

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 02:01:00 UTC | #433608

mmurray's Avatar Comment 13 by mmurray

I thought I read something when NBGA was announced that non-believers was chosen as it was Obama's word for what we would call atheists.

I suspect there is as much chance of changing the name now as there is of changing the fine print.


Thu, 21 Jan 2010 05:01:00 UTC | #433646

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 14 by Tyler Durden

Non-believers Giving Aid (NBGA) - "I may not believe in your god, but I do believe in giving."

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:11:00 UTC | #433763

dpstudio's Avatar Comment 15 by dpstudio

I dont get it, If u look at northern Europe thay are best in the world making donation. And also the least religious people on Earth.
why does this article sounds like is a miracle happening just couse non believers donate money when in fact they donate most money in the world

1. Sweden - 1.02%
2. Norway - 0.89%
3. Luxembourg - 0.84%
4. Netherlands - 0.81%
5. Denmark - 0.8%

Least religious countries in the world:
1. Sweden (up to 85% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)
2. Vietnam
3. Denmark
4. Norway
5. Japan
6. Czech Republic
7. Finland
8. France
9. South Korea
10. Estonia (up to 49% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:48:00 UTC | #433793

Alternative Carpark's Avatar Comment 16 by Alternative Carpark


This is precisely why I have been against the idea of atheist branding of charities. The statistics speak for themselves; 'non-believers' have nothing to prove.

This latest effort to convince, mostly American (let's not deny it), religiots of our compassion and magnanimity is almost like conceding

"well, yes, we used to be a bit stingy when it came to helping others, but, look at us now - we are just as giving as you people of faithywaithy".

However, as the good professor said, what matters in the end is how much money is raised to help these people, and it does appear that the whole NBGA initiative has been very successful.

Fri, 22 Jan 2010 00:32:00 UTC | #434047