"As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God"

PDN

My daughter drew my attention to this fascinating article in the Times by Matthew Parris.

Now here is a fair-minded atheist who disproves my signature line!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5400568.ece

From The Times
December 27, 2008

As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God
Missionaries, not aid money, are the solution to Africa's biggest problem - the crushing passivity of the people's mindset
Matthew Parris

Before Christmas I returned, after 45 years, to the country that as a boy I knew as Nyasaland. Today it's Malawi, and The Times Christmas Appeal includes a small British charity working there. Pump Aid helps rural communities to install a simple pump, letting people keep their village wells sealed and clean. I went to see this work.

It inspired me, renewing my flagging faith in development charities. But travelling in Malawi refreshed another belief, too: one I've been trying to banish all my life, but an observation I've been unable to avoid since my African childhood. It confounds my ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit my world view, and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God.

Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.

I used to avoid this truth by applauding - as you can - the practical work of mission churches in Africa. It's a pity, I would say, that salvation is part of the package, but Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write; and only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it. I would allow that if faith was needed to motivate missionaries to help, then, fine: but what counted was the help, not the faith.
But this doesn't fit the facts. Faith does more than support the missionary; it is also transferred to his flock. This is the effect that matters so immensely, and which I cannot help observing.

First, then, the observation. We had friends who were missionaries, and as a child I stayed often with them; I also stayed, alone with my little brother, in a traditional rural African village. In the city we had working for us Africans who had converted and were strong believers. The Christians were always different. Far from having cowed or confined its converts, their faith appeared to have liberated and relaxed them. There was a liveliness, a curiosity, an engagement with the world - a directness in their dealings with others - that seemed to be missing in traditional African life. They stood tall.

At 24, travelling by land across the continent reinforced this impression. From Algiers to Niger, Nigeria, Cameroon and the Central African Republic, then right through the Congo to Rwanda, Tanzania and Kenya, four student friends and I drove our old Land Rover to Nairobi.

We slept under the stars, so it was important as we reached the more populated and lawless parts of the sub-Sahara that every day we find somewhere safe by nightfall. Often near a mission.

Whenever we entered a territory worked by missionaries, we had to acknowledge that something changed in the faces of the people we passed and spoke to: something in their eyes, the way they approached you direct, man-to-man, without looking down or away. They had not become more deferential towards strangers - in some ways less so - but more open.

This time in Malawi it was the same. I met no missionaries. You do not encounter missionaries in the lobbies of expensive hotels discussing development strategy documents, as you do with the big NGOs. But instead I noticed that a handful of the most impressive African members of the Pump Aid team (largely from Zimbabwe) were, privately, strong Christians. “Privately” because the charity is entirely secular and I never heard any of its team so much as mention religion while working in the villages. But I picked up the Christian references in our conversations. One, I saw, was studying a devotional textbook in the car. One, on Sunday, went off to church at dawn for a two-hour service.

It would suit me to believe that their honesty, diligence and optimism in their work was unconnected with personal faith. Their work was secular, but surely affected by what they were. What they were was, in turn, influenced by a conception of man's place in the Universe that Christianity had taught.

There's long been a fashion among Western academic sociologists for placing tribal value systems within a ring fence, beyond critiques founded in our own culture: “theirs” and therefore best for “them”; authentic and of intrinsically equal worth to ours.

I don't follow this. I observe that tribal belief is no more peaceable than ours; and that it suppresses individuality. People think collectively; first in terms of the community, extended family and tribe. This rural-traditional mindset feeds into the “big man” and gangster politics of the African city: the exaggerated respect for a swaggering leader, and the (literal) inability to understand the whole idea of loyal opposition.

Anxiety - fear of evil spirits, of ancestors, of nature and the wild, of a tribal hierarchy, of quite everyday things - strikes deep into the whole structure of rural African thought. Every man has his place and, call it fear or respect, a great weight grinds down the individual spirit, stunting curiosity. People won't take the initiative, won't take things into their own hands or on their own shoulders.

How can I, as someone with a foot in both camps, explain? When the philosophical tourist moves from one world view to another he finds - at the very moment of passing into the new - that he loses the language to describe the landscape to the old. But let me try an example: the answer given by Sir Edmund Hillary to the question: Why climb the mountain? “Because it's there,” he said.

To the rural African mind, this is an explanation of why one would not climb the mountain. It's... well, there. Just there. Why interfere? Nothing to be done about it, or with it. Hillary's further explanation - that nobody else had climbed it - would stand as a second reason for passivity.

Christianity, post-Reformation and post-Luther, with its teaching of a direct, personal, two-way link between the individual and God, unmediated by the collective, and unsubordinate to any other human being, smashes straight through the philosphical/spiritual framework I've just described. It offers something to hold on to to those anxious to cast off a crushing tribal groupthink. That is why and how it liberates.

Those who want Africa to walk tall amid 21st-century global competition must not kid themselves that providing the material means or even the knowhow that accompanies what we call development will make the change. A whole belief system must first be supplanted.

And I'm afraid it has to be supplanted by another. Removing Christian evangelism from the African equation may leave the continent at the mercy of a malign fusion of Nike, the witch doctor, the mobile phone and the machete.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Do you not find that this completely devalues religion?

It's saying that people should 'believe in god' not because such a thing exists but because it makes economic sense.

philologos

It might devalue religion a bit, but I think it's refreshing to hear it from such a perspective on the other hand.

PDN

Sean_K wrote: »

Do you not find that this completely devalues religion?

It's saying that people should 'believe in god' not because such a thing exists but because it makes economic sense.

Why on earth should it 'devalue religion' just because an atheist says God doesn't exist? What a strange notion!

If you read the article then you would see it is much more than saying that belief in God "makes economic sense". Parris has observed how Christianity in Africa adds to people's human dignity and makes them more active in helping others.

Parris' article does not prove that Christianity is true (he remains an atheist) nor does it devalue religion at all. What it does is demonstrate that you can be a thoughtful atheist without being an anti-theist. Your kneejerk reaction as evidenced in your post indicates that you haven't learnt that lesson yet.

I found Parris' article to be refreshing, even though I would disagree with him on other issues and despite a disgusting moral skeleton in his closet:

He used to be a Thatcherite Tory MP! :eek:

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Jakkass wrote: »

It might devalue religion a bit, but I think it's refreshing to hear it from such a perspective on the other hand.

True, I'd see the benefits religion brings society, it keeps people on the straight and narrow, and gives a lot of people something to live for. However this leads to an inevitable conflict between the search for reason and truth and the search for contentness.

Is it perhaps a bit condescending to Africa to hand them religion as a pacifier?

atheist

PDN wrote: »

I found Parris' article to be refreshing, even though I would disagree with him on other issues and despite a disgusting moral skeleton in his closet:

He used to be a Thatcherite Tory MP! :eek:

Agreed, and perhaps this atheist would wish for hell for some politicians!

PDN

Sean_K wrote: »

Is it perhaps a bit condescending to Africa to hand them religion as a pacifier?

For God's sake why don't you read the article before you comment on it? Parris specifically states that he does not believe religion to be a pacifier at all.

He said:

The Christians were always different. Far from having cowed or confined its converts, their faith appeared to have liberated and relaxed them. There was a liveliness, a curiosity, an engagement with the world - a directness in their dealings with others - that seemed to be missing in traditional African life. They stood tall.

...... Whenever we entered a territory worked by missionaries, we had to acknowledge that something changed in the faces of the people we passed and spoke to: something in their eyes, the way they approached you direct, man-to-man, without looking down or away. They had not become more deferential towards strangers - in some ways less so - but more open.

... Christianity, post-Reformation and post-Luther, with its teaching of a direct, personal, two-way link between the individual and God, unmediated by the collective, and unsubordinate to any other human being, smashes straight through the philosphical/spiritual framework I've just described. It offers something to hold on to to those anxious to cast off a crushing tribal groupthink. That is why and how it liberates.

CDfm

Im a bit cynical.

Loads of people criticize christian charities but like the benefits as long as someone else is responsible for the work.

The Africans are all soupers:rolleyes:

Abraham

I find this article by Matthew Parris to be thoughtful, informative and intelligently provocative. So much of what is and has gone on in Africa is completely unknown to us yet judgments are made by so many people at a safe remove. The insights in the article are invaluable and not obvious to everyone, imo, so it's well worth reading and reflecting on the substance thereof.
I detest the notion of foisting religion on others but maybe in the overall context, religion and especially Christianity has done mostly good and brought some measure of relief from suffering.

I think it was Martin Luther King who said "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity".

Perhaps that is true of much of what is said and done in regard to Africa ?
I believe it is.

lostexpectation

wouldn't atheist volunteeers do the same job.

lostexpectation

parris is just another of these stupid columnist who thinks of hte most stupid thing to say and then argues it to the death, its what he's paid for.

philologos

Sean_K wrote: »

True, I'd see the benefits religion brings society, it keeps people on the straight and narrow, and gives a lot of people something to live for. However this leads to an inevitable conflict between the search for reason and truth and the search for contentness.

Is it perhaps a bit condescending to Africa to hand them religion as a pacifier?

Sean, see I think your problem is this. I don't agree with mention to Africa in particular. However, I don't think it's condascending. Condascending implies that religion is a negative thing. If you truly believe that religion is, or that theism rather is then of course you are going to see it as condascending. I personally think that belief in Christianity in particular can have benefits in peoples lives, and I don't think it's condascending in some way to believe so. However I do receive your point somewhat.

lostexpectation, there was a piece by David Quinn on charities a few weeks ago in the Irish Independent, in which he noted that believers are generally more charitable than non-believers. He noted the lack of any atheist or secular humanist based charities following the Katrina incident in 2005 in the USA. It's just something to think about really, I'm not entirely sure that it is too accurate. I do think that faithful people have more of a charitable impulse than atheists though.

Abraham, what is your reasoning behind the Martin Luther King quote and Africa, I'm just kind of curious about it. If you could explain that more that'd be much appreciated. Are you suggesting that Christianity is ultimately sincere ignorance and conscientous stupidity. I really don't think that Martin Luther King would agree with that given his own Christianity. Again I'd just be interested in some form of clarification.

Mrs OBumble

lostexpectation wrote: »

wouldn't atheist volunteeers do the same job.

Sheesh! Did you even read the article?

The whole point is that the religious volunteers, as well as doing the job, also shared their faith the locals. And this faith has given the locals a whole new world-view that makes them far better people. Athiest volunteers, by definition, do not have a faith of any persuasion to share.

lostexpectation

yes but atheist could influence people cuturally and with knowledge and reason too.

PDN

lostexpectation wrote: »

yes but atheist could influence people cuturally and with knowledge and reason too.

They could, but Africa will have gone down the toilet completely by the time they get round to it. And then the question will have to be asked, "But was their atheism the reason for their influence on Africa? Can't you see how atheist philanthropists are 'religion-like' in their behaviour?" (that argument cuts both ways - you can't apply it to the evil an atheist like Stalin does and then not apply it to any good an atheist might do).

Come on, it's taken you guys 200 years to put an advert on the side of a bus - I think it'll take you appreciably longer to make any meaningful contribution to helping Africa.

Fanny Cradock

Yes, but that rather misses the entire point of the article. Besides, your suggestion quite borders on the notion that religious people are without reason etc., etc...

philologos

lostexpectation wrote: »

yes but atheist could influence people cuturally and with knowledge and reason too.

What makes you think that atheists have more reason or knowledge than anyone else? :rolleyes:

Húrin

It's really refreshing to see such a mature piece of atheist writing coming out of Britain. At least not all of them are towing Dawkins' line.

Mind you I don't agree that

Matthew Parris wrote:

Missionaries, not aid money, are the solution to Africa's biggest problem - the crushing passivity of the people's mindset

I think that you need both if you want to improve people's lives. I suspect this is his conservative political views talking.

lostexpectation wrote: »

yes but atheist could influence people cuturally and with knowledge and reason too.

So could theists. Atheists do not own knowledge and reason. Those things do not on their own produce an open mind, contentment or moral improvement. Confidence, perhaps, but not those.

lostexpectation

well if we're allowed in this thread and because of the writer to suggest that being religious is unreasonable

lostexpectation

PDN wrote: »

They could, but Africa will have gone down the toilet completely by the time they get round to it. And then the question will have to be asked, "But was their atheism the reason for their influence on Africa? Can't you see how atheist philanthropists are 'religion-like' in their behaviour?" (that argument cuts both ways - you can't apply it to the evil an atheist like Stalin does and then not apply it to any good an atheist might do).

Come on, it's taken you guys 200 years to put an advert on the side of a bus - I think it'll take you appreciably longer to make any meaningful contribution to helping Africa.

i never said i was in favour foreign philanthropists, come on guys 2000 years and still have given up this nonsense! /light hearted banter

Schuhart

lostexpectation wrote: »

wouldn't atheist volunteeers do the same job.

Jakkass wrote: »

there was a piece by David Quinn on charities a few weeks ago in the Irish Independent, in which he noted that believers are generally more charitable than non-believers. He noted the lack of any atheist or secular humanist based charities following the Katrina incident in 2005 in the USA.

These statements made me recall a conversation I had with someone a few years ago. I can't remember the exact details of the matter we were discussing, but the essentials were that Mother Teresa had established refugee camps to help people fleeing from a conflict zone. There was some adverse comment that the relief effort did not facilitate abortions for women who had been raped in the conflict, presumably because they were applying Catholic ethics.

What I mostly remember is discomforting the person I was talking to, (she being critical of Mother Teresa's anti-abortion stance), when I said 'Yeah, but, she's actually out there offering support. We're not. You can hardly expect her to offer support in a way she feels is harmful, and if securing abortions for those women is so important for us, what are we doing about it?'

So, indeed, I do think there's an issue here worthy of exploration. On the one hand, it would seem silly to think that religion would exist and be so widespread if it did not meet some real human need. Equally, I think we do have to face a reality that atheism is silent on quite a lot of issues that fall to be addressed. And, indeed, the example that started this thread does highlight this. Maybe atheist volunteers could (in principle) do the same job. But they aren't. And if they did, what is it that we'd be communicating to folk to change their view of the world? I mean, we tend to spend more time asserting that ethics don't need a religious basis than we do actually establishing what that non-religious basis is. What's the programme?

robindch

Schuhart wrote: »

I do think there's an issue here worthy of exploration. On the one hand, it would seem silly to think that religion would exist and be so widespread if it did not meet some real human need. Equally, I think we do have to face a reality that atheism is silent on quite a lot of issues that fall to be addressed. [...] we tend to spend more time asserting that ethics don't need a religious basis than we do actually establishing what that non-religious basis is. What's the programme?

The fairly simple, and perhaps rather obvious answer, is that religion, being unconstrained by reality, is unconstrained by any necessity to produce answers that agree with reality.

Religion does, however, produce answers that agree with people's perception of reality -- in other words, it tells people what they want to hear for no greater reason than it's what they want to hear, as one well-known forum moderator inadvertently implied in one of his posts on Thursday. Looking at the structure of the offer, religion is no more than a simple, if distinctly self-important, wishing game, with a clerical class offering skittles which are trusted, and eaten without question, by its consumer base.

Constraining oneself to reality and the limiting bounds of logic and linguistic consistency, one should approach the "why?" question with great caution, because the simple act of asking the question implies one's belief in the existence of a definitive answer, regardless of the whether or not an answer does, in fact, exist.

Logically, it's equivalent to asking some guy if he's stopped beating his wife yet -- such a question clearly assuming (whether or not he has) that he indeed has indeed indulged in the biblical duty of meting out stern discipline to his wife.

Hence, the asking of "what's the purpose of life?", "how should man live?" and all the other questions which one can only answer oneself, necessarily seem to imply the existence of a globally-applicable answer selected from the million different ones available, with each answer believed in proportion to one's own taste, and regardless, and frequently in denial, of whether such an answer is reasonable, or even possible.

.

Helix

as an atheist, i think that christian views and morals, at their purest, are a fantastic thing

and a thing very much with my own view of the world. i dont think that you need to be a christian to appreciate them, but in some cases if thats the only way theyre available to you, then i dont think its necessarily a bad thing

its when theyre corrupted, and adapted to suit agendas that i think most non christians begin to have problems with them, but i dont think theres a non-believer in the world who cant appreciate the value of do unto others as you would have them do unto you

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Logically, it's equivalent to asking some guy if he's stopped beating his wife yet -- such a question clearly assuming (whether or not he has) that he indeed has indeed indulged in the biblical duty of meting out stern discipline to his wife.

The Bible does not advocate wife beating in any shape or form. For you to slyly state that it does (while discussing Christian missionary work in Africa) is trolling and a clear attempt to drag the thread into train wreck territory.

Consider yourself yellow-carded.

Rev Hellfire

Schuhart wrote: »

So, indeed, I do think there's an issue here worthy of exploration. On the one hand, it would seem silly to think that religion would exist and be so widespread if it did not meet some real human need. Equally, I think we do have to face a reality that atheism is silent on quite a lot of issues that fall to be addressed. And, indeed, the example that started this thread does highlight this. Maybe atheist volunteers could (in principle) do the same job. But they aren't. And if they did, what is it that we'd be communicating to folk to change their view of the world? I mean, we tend to spend more time asserting that ethics don't need a religious basis than we do actually establishing what that non-religious basis is. What's the programme?

As atheists are so fond of saying been an atheist requires only one article of faith the disbelief in god(s). Beyond that no requirements are placed on the individual.

Most religions on the other hand require their adherents to actively participate in the betterment of their fellow humans, ie. the requirement of Muslims to provide charity. An atheist has no such stick which religion provides. True there are humanist societies, but these are voluntary while in religion good works are a necessity.

Atheists commonly rail against the accusation that they do less charitable works than believers, but I believe its fair accusation simply because they lack the same supernatural stick which motivates believers.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

PDN wrote: »

The Bible does not advocate wife beating in any shape or form. For you to slyly state that it does (while discussing Christian missionary work in Africa) is trolling and a clear attempt to drag the thread into train wreck territory.

How about you replace the word 'wife' with the word 'slave' then?

/edit: On topic, while I'd openly admit to not being the most charitable person in the world, I have observed that you have to be careful which charities you give your money to. Some, such as the salvation army, hold some pretty...conservative beliefs.

bus77

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

As atheists are so fond of saying been an atheist requires only one article of faith the disbelief in god(s). Beyond that no requirements are placed on the individual.

Most religions on the other hand require their adherents to actively participate in the betterment of their fellow humans, ie. the requirement of Muslims to provide charity. An atheist has no such stick which religion provides. True there are humanist societies, but these are voluntary while in religion good works are a necessity.

Recently I came across a quote in a piece published on sacred-texts.com

''of those asserting the non-existence of a sacred being— whom they call atheistical (daharî) that they are ordained free from religious trouble (alag) and the toil of practising good works..''

It was written around 800AD by a Zoroastrian who was watching the decline of his own religion. So I won't bother linking to the full text as it's unnecessarily polemical and abusive.

But I did wonder was there a bit of truth to this. Is Atheism, in some, a reaction to the 'propaganda'(for lack of a better word) of preforming good works from religion?

Or perhaps is there a building reaction or 'doubt' in Atheists from the battle itself?

Dades

I would definitely give Parris' thoughts some credit. The idea that Africa needs something other than cash to drag it out of the mire is apparent.

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally think that belief in Christianity in particular can have benefits in peoples lives, and I don't think it's condascending in some way to believe so. However I do receive your point somewhat.

It is unavoidably condescending though to suggest that people would benefit from something which you yourself believe to be bogus, as you have to make the assumption they are not educated enough to know any better.

Atheism has nothing to offer current-day Africa (hey it's just a disbelief), but there may a case for Christianity as even a man-made system of morality masquerading as a God-prescribed one may be better than none in a continent in need of a reboot.

Schuhart

robindch wrote: »

The fairly simple, and perhaps rather obvious answer, is that religion, being unconstrained by reality, is unconstrained by any necessity to produce answers that agree with reality.

Indeed, which leaves us in a position of asserting that either most people operate best when not agreeing with reality, or that what religion requires of people, by and large, is consistent with reality.

robindch wrote: »

Religion does, however, produce answers that agree with people's perception of reality -- in other words, it tells people what they want to hear for no greater reason than it's what they want to hear, as one well-known forum moderator inadvertently implied in one of his posts on Thursday.

Indeed, it could simply be a mind game. I’ve never had a problem with public speaking, but I’m reminded of the advice given to people who find it off-putting to imagine the audience is naked. As David Hume pointed out in his ‘Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding’, there might be no reliable philosophical basis from which an all-powerful, all-loving, all-whatever god can be derived. But its quite a different matter to suggest that someone who believes in such a god will act in the same way as someone who does not.

As an aside, I recall a comment by Scofflaw a while back

I am, unsurprisingly, working from the premise that there is no such thing as an objectively 'good' life. The theist cannot therefore be described as "wasting" their life, as long as they judge themselves to be leading a good life (in which they are supported by other theists) - indeed, the only person who can really describe a theist as wasting their life is another theist.

robindch wrote: »

Hence, the asking of "what's the purpose of life?", "how should man live?" and all the other questions which one can only answer oneself, necessarily seem to imply the existence of a globally-applicable answer selected from the million different ones available, with each answer believed in proportion to one's own taste, and regardless, and frequently in denial, of whether such an answer is reasonable, or even possible.

I probably agree with the substance of that. I’d just present it differently. When a theist enquires if there’s any basis for morality or purpose in atheism other than personal vagary, the answer is (IMHO) a straightforward ‘no’. Hence, if a society is directionless and seeking inspiration, its probably not unreasonable to say a religion will do that better that atheism. I think that’s all that’s being said here.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Atheists commonly rail against the accusation that they do less charitable works than believers, but I believe its fair accusation simply because they lack the same supernatural stick which motivates believers.

In fairness, I think we do need to moderate that view a little. After all, many believers just perfunctorily act out their religious duties. Their charitable works may consist of no more than throwing a few shillings into a Vincent de Paul collection at Christmas and, frankly, everyone does a bit of that.

I think (and obviously this is just speculation) that we might more likely find a difference if we looked at folk engaged in substantial charitable works. I’d expect (on no basis other than arbitrary prejudgement) that we’d find the bulk of folk who actually devote some substantial portion of their life to charitable works would be religiously motivated.

PDN

Sean_K wrote: »

How about you replace the word 'wife' with the word 'slave' then?

Trolls are not noted for their intelligence.

Yellow card for ignoring Robin's warning and trying your own device to drag the thread off topic. Now get back under your bridge.

TheZenWithin

although i think religion is a pure fabrication, i do believe in what it makes people do and think. without religion there would be alot more wars etc. religion can do some good for countries that havent met such things.

im not looking for an arguement but the article makes sense. if theough religion lives are bettered or even saved then that is worth devaluing a religion.

Helix

TheZenWithin wrote: »

without religion there would be alot more wars etc.

i disagree with that tbh

i think thered be pretty much the exact same amount of wars, except instead of religion theyd be fighting about something else instead. the non religious wars would continue as is, leaving a parity

our species seem to like a good oul war

TheZenWithin

Helix wrote: »

i disagree with that tbh

i think thered be pretty much the exact same amount of wars, except instead of religion theyd be fighting about something else instead. the non religious wars would continue as is, leaving a parity

our species seem to like a good oul war

You know now that I think about it you are right. If anything wars are brought on by religious differences.
I didn't think that one through enough

KamiKazi

Africa doesn't need g0d, it needs more pimps, to put the bizatches to work

TheZenWithin

but nobody gots no cream to fo the hoes?!

god will do for now

KamiKazi

damn fool, dont you know that pimpz got enough to go around?

TheZenWithin

so they do but alls the patrons of such a fine establishment would be broke ass muthas that cant even afford no amenities let alone a fine ass trick.

holla

Goduznt Xzst

I guarantee if you had a charity organization that handed out weed with its food that you'd see the same distinction between secular NGO's.

I will agree, Atheism will not work for these people. People who's lot in life will never greatly increase for their generation and most likely that of their childrens need some sort of quantifiable Raison d'être. Christianity gives them tasks and goals that are achieveable without means and that promises them that they will get a reward post humously, a chance at a better existence, something food and shelter and education will never give them.

Much like the way parents get their children to behave before Christmas by saying Santa doesn't give presents to naughty children. It works the same way, you promise a person something to stroke their selfish desires and they will act altruistically to attain it.

A Primal Nut

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

As atheists are so fond of saying been an atheist requires only one article of faith the disbelief in god(s). Beyond that no requirements are placed on the individual.

Most religions on the other hand require their adherents to actively participate in the betterment of their fellow humans, ie. the requirement of Muslims to provide charity. An atheist has no such stick which religion provides. True there are humanist societies, but these are voluntary while in religion good works are a necessity.

But any non-catholic christians I know say good works have nothing to do with getting into heaven; that belief in god is all that matters.

philologos

A Primal Nut wrote: »

But any non-catholic christians I know say good works have nothing to do with getting into heaven; that belief in god is all that matters.

Good works are how we tell true faith from not.

Jesus continually puts the image across, you shall know them by their fruit.

John the Baptist before receiving the repentant to be baptized commands them to "bear fruit worthy of repentance".

Helix

but non religious people do good works too

its not an exclusive club or anything. if someone who doesnt believe in god leads a good life thats hardly true faith

PDN

Helix wrote: »

but non religious people do good works too

That's true, but statistically (at least when it comes to giving to charities or engaging in volunteerism) they do less of them.

Helix

PDN wrote: »

That's true, but statistically (at least when it comes to giving to charities or engaging in volunteerism) they do less of them.

its hard to say accurately tho, as there are many people who may not believe in a god, but dont declare it for societal reasons

PDN

Helix wrote: »

its hard to say accurately tho, as there are many people who may not believe in a god, but dont declare it for societal reasons

The link is apparently with church-going rather than making any declaration. A number of surveys from different countries have shown that frequency of giving to non-religious charities (ie not counting people giving money to their church) and volunteerism in non-religious causes increases in direct proportion to the frequency of church attendance.

Helix

again tho, as we can see in ireland, church attendance isnt necessarily indicative of reilgiosity

PDN

Helix wrote: »

again tho, as we can see in ireland, church attendance isnt necessarily indicative of reilgiosity

In what way? I don't get your point. Could you unpack that statement?

Helix

well there are a huge amount of non religious people who go to mass purely because its something that was drummed into them while growing up. or they go to keep their family happy. or they go because its expected of them.

in my own personal life i can think of a huge amount of people who fit into each category, as well as people who go to church because theyre religious. i dont think that church attendance, in this day and age, has a huge amount to do with being religious or not. in a lot of cases it seems only to be a measure of how voiciferous one is about their non belief, or lack of faith

Africans do not need religion. They need an education. And that applies to every single person on earth.

Rev Hellfire

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Africans do not need religion. They need an education. And that applies to every single person on earth.

Alas the both nutritional and educational value of catchy sound bites seems rather poor.

A Primal Nut wrote: »

But any non-catholic christians I know say good works have nothing to do with getting into heaven; that belief in god is all that matters.

The validity of the belief is irrelevant, rather its the end result that's important.
Religions (both Christian and non-Christian) proactively encourage chariable good works, typically with a nice supernatural reward as a sweetener for the giver. Atheistism naturally offers no such thing.

Helix

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Atheistism naturally offers no such thing.

society does tho

Rev Hellfire

Helix wrote: »

society does tho

It lacks the motivation factor which religion provides, nor is it a requirement in 'society' to give charity.