Conquer Club

An atheist and agnostics group in Alabama is running an interesting campaign. For every five dollars they raise for their charity, they'l send one of their members to a religious denomination.

The charity has two goals. One raise money for their charity. Two help dispel misconceptions about atheists/agnostics.

linky

http://cw.ua.edu/2012/03/21/atheist-gro ... r-charity/

What do you guys think?

Sounds interesting. I haven't been to church since the 1980's. I'd go to church for charity. Like the person said in the article it would be fun to sing hymns again. That and the food are the only things I miss. Wednesday night revival meetings = good food.

Quirk wrote:Sounds interesting. I haven't been to church since the 1980's. I'd go to church for charity. Like the person said in the article it would be fun to sing hymns again. That and the food are the only things I miss. Wednesday night revival meetings = good food.

There's .... There's free food at church?

I need to re-evaluate my life.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Quirk wrote:Sounds interesting. I haven't been to church since the 1980's. I'd go to church for charity. Like the person said in the article it would be fun to sing hymns again. That and the food are the only things I miss. Wednesday night revival meetings = good food.

There's .... There's free food at church?

I need to re-evaluate my life.

Since when do churches give away free food? Sign me up!

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Quirk wrote:Sounds interesting. I haven't been to church since the 1980's. I'd go to church for charity. Like the person said in the article it would be fun to sing hymns again. That and the food are the only things I miss. Wednesday night revival meetings = good food.

There's .... There's free food at church?

I need to re-evaluate my life.

Since when do churches give away free food? Sign me up!

There used to be cake and cookies when I was a kid.

wow, so we're basically paying non-believers to attend Church?

shieldgenerator7 wrote:wow, so we're basically paying non-believers to attend Church?

No.

Non-believers are drawing attention to a charity. You give money to the charity and a non-believer goes to a church of your choice. As I understand it the non-believers don't get any money for doing that.

Well that's interesting. I'm interested into seeing how it turns out.

-rd

My family was Catholic but my grandmother was a Baptist. I spent my summers with my grandparents. We didn't get food on Sundays but Wednesday nights everyone would bring food to church. I enjoyed the home-cooked Southern cuisine and cute girls. However, it wasn't enough to make me join the church. I should point out this was over 30 years ago. I don't know how much things have changed. Maybe I'll find out for charity.

i don't understand the point of this.

if they don't believe the teachings of the church, then what will they gain from attending? more social connections?

or is this an attempt to tell churchgoers "hey, we're people like you guys!"?

john9blue wrote:i don't understand the point of this.

if they don't believe the teachings of the church, then what will they gain from attending? more social connections?

or is this an attempt to tell churchgoers "hey, we're people like you guys!"?

Yeah, the article pretty much says that.

-rd

rdsrds2120 wrote:Yeah, the article pretty much says that.

-rd

oh i see. i just skimmed the article because i figured that BVP's explanation "help dispel misconceptions about atheists/agnostics" was all there was.

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Quirk wrote:Sounds interesting. I haven't been to church since the 1980's. I'd go to church for charity. Like the person said in the article it would be fun to sing hymns again. That and the food are the only things I miss. Wednesday night revival meetings = good food.

There's .... There's free food at church?

I need to re-evaluate my life.

Since when do churches give away free food? Sign me up!

Churches have been helping feed people for thousands of years...

Phatscotty wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Quirk wrote:Sounds interesting. I haven't been to church since the 1980's. I'd go to church for charity. Like the person said in the article it would be fun to sing hymns again. That and the food are the only things I miss. Wednesday night revival meetings = good food.

There's .... There's free food at church?

I need to re-evaluate my life.

Since when do churches give away free food? Sign me up!

Churches have been helping feed people for thousands of years...

that's true! In the Russia empire the church had it own farms with serfs and everything. They were probably just cutting out the middlemen.

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Quirk wrote:Sounds interesting. I haven't been to church since the 1980's. I'd go to church for charity. Like the person said in the article it would be fun to sing hymns again. That and the food are the only things I miss. Wednesday night revival meetings = good food.

There's .... There's free food at church?

I need to re-evaluate my life.

Since when do churches give away free food? Sign me up!

Churches have been helping feed people for thousands of years...

that's true! In the Russia empire the church had it own farms with serfs and everything. They were probably just cutting out the middlemen.

What were the alternatives?

Baron Von PWN wrote:that's true! In the Russia empire the church had it own farms with serfs and everything. They were probably just cutting out the middlemen.

in soviet russia, middlemen cut you!

BigBallinStalin wrote:
What were the alternatives?

This is actually a fair point. At the time very little agriculture was done by people who actually owned the land.

Though the church was mainly running farms for itself, and not to feed poor people. (money to build more churches/ Icons and so on).


I suspect most organized religion has been similar throughout history. The main cause is the spread of their faith, charity is secondary.

Baron Von PWN wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:
What were the alternatives?

This is actually a fair point. At the time very little agriculture was done by people who actually owned the land.

Though the church was mainly running farms for itself, and not to feed poor people. (money to build more churches/ Icons and so on).


I suspect most organized religion has been similar throughout history. The main cause is the spread of their faith, charity is secondary.

Perhaps, you're right, but that's a big claim.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:
What were the alternatives?

This is actually a fair point. At the time very little agriculture was done by people who actually owned the land.

Though the church was mainly running farms for itself, and not to feed poor people. (money to build more churches/ Icons and so on).


I suspect most organized religion has been similar throughout history. The main cause is the spread of their faith, charity is secondary.

Perhaps, you're right, but that's a big claim.

I don't think so. Religious organisations are about their faith. They might engage in charity as an expression of that faith but the main purpose will be observance of that faith.

It's like a corporation. They might engage in charity but their primary goal is the business.

Religious organisations primary goal is the religion.

Baron Von PWN wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:
What were the alternatives?

This is actually a fair point. At the time very little agriculture was done by people who actually owned the land.

Though the church was mainly running farms for itself, and not to feed poor people. (money to build more churches/ Icons and so on).


I suspect most organized religion has been similar throughout history. The main cause is the spread of their faith, charity is secondary.

Perhaps, you're right, but that's a big claim.

I don't think so. Religious organisations are about their faith. They might engage in charity as an expression of that faith but the main purpose will be observance of that faith.

It's like a corporation. They might engage in charity but their primary goal is the business.

Religious organisations primary goal is the religion.

You came so close to the truth there, but just missed it....

They are indeed just like a corporation. The primary goal is also the business. Their product just happens to be religion, and the charity as with the corporation; marketing.

I should point out also, that this does not inherently make every religion evil. Just as a business that does not do business will not be a business, the same holds true for a church. Any perceived evil would be in the excess and waste, commonly a result of good ole fashioned greed.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:
What were the alternatives?

This is actually a fair point. At the time very little agriculture was done by people who actually owned the land.

Though the church was mainly running farms for itself, and not to feed poor people. (money to build more churches/ Icons and so on).


I suspect most organized religion has been similar throughout history. The main cause is the spread of their faith, charity is secondary.

Perhaps, you're right, but that's a big claim.

I think its 100% true. The only thing that would make it a big claim, would be to suggest that every single religion ever did this. His use of the word most, hits the 100% true mark, with +/- 0%.

The only possible claim that could be disputed scientifically, would be the exact amount of most.

I am certainly guessing, but if one were to simply take a survey of the number of religions, and view their purchases of say gold chalices, marble floors, statues, churches, and excess material wealth of its leaders versus the amount actually spent helping needy human beings, one would find the numbers not only disturbing, but outright disgusting.

No doubt many religions have helped many people, billions, but at the same time, if there is one gold chalice in a church worth $5000 and 300 human babies could be saved with the proceeds of selling that chalice....what words in any Bible of any church would advocate such a decision?

Christ: "First store my blood in finest cup, and then tend the needs of My Fathers Children."

Maybe that quote just didn't make it in there, but I suspect one could deduce from his actual quotes that he would not approve.

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Quirk wrote:Sounds interesting. I haven't been to church since the 1980's. I'd go to church for charity. Like the person said in the article it would be fun to sing hymns again. That and the food are the only things I miss. Wednesday night revival meetings = good food.

There's .... There's free food at church?

I need to re-evaluate my life.

Since when do churches give away free food? Sign me up!

Churches have been helping feed people for thousands of years...

that's true! In the Russia empire the church had it own farms with serfs and everything. They were probably just cutting out the middlemen.

Oh give me a break,I know you've got something against Christianity, but yes, churches do do other things than inquisitions and telling people that they are bad. The vast majority of charitable organizations are faith-based. The vast majority of food and other things given for free to the poor is part of some religious organization or another.

But anyway,that's what Phatscotty was talking about, but what Quirk was probably referring to is the "coffee fellowship" or some such that a lot of churches do after service to give people opportunity to talk, and hopefully welcome visitors and new members more informally. It can range from just coffee and donuts to a real meal, or something in between, like sandwiches.

In a Baptist church we went to in New York, we had English and Spanish speaking congregations. First one group would have their service in the church while the other had Sunday school in the classrooms, then we'd have the coffee and sandwiches and stuff, then we'd switch places.

The members of the church provide the food at Wednesday night revival meetings. I was discussing things an atheist might enjoy at church. Food and music.

Quirk wrote:The members of the church provide the food at Wednesday night revival meetings. I was discussing things an atheist might enjoy at church. Food and music.

Which sounds fun!

daddy1gringo wrote:Oh give me a break,I know you've got something against Christianity, but yes, churches do do other things than inquisitions and telling people that they are bad. The vast majority of charitable organizations are faith-based. The vast majority of food and other things given for free to the poor is part of some religious organization or another.

But anyway,that's what Phatscotty was talking about, but what Quirk was probably referring to is the "coffee fellowship" or some such that a lot of churches do after service to give people opportunity to talk, and hopefully welcome visitors and new members more informally. It can range from just coffee and donuts to a real meal, or something in between, like sandwiches.

In a Baptist church we went to in New York, we had English and Spanish speaking congregations. First one group would have their service in the church while the other had Sunday school in the classrooms, then we'd have the coffee and sandwiches and stuff, then we'd switch places.

It isin't surprising that religious organizations are the majority of charitable organizations, since simply being a religious organization makes them a "charitable" organization. Regardless of whether they do any actual charity work. By which I mean something other than practising their religion. Like run a soup kitchen or homeless shelter.

I don't have a problem with Christianity. I'm just sceptical of claims to exceptional righteousness. I've done some searching online but haven't found anything credible one way or the other.

It's true many church groups run charities, and that's great. However those charities are secondary to the church's primary function of being a church.