Examples of especially moral atheists

[Zixinus]

Can anyone cite examples of great charity workers that were openly atheists? People that gave allot of their lives to help others, help economy? Great humanitarians?

Preferably living people.

I'm not in an argument (yet), however I want ammunation like this if I ever get into one.

I think it would rush head againts fundie's beliefs that atheists are social darwinists and amoral.

[K. A. Pital]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists

[Zixinus]

Too short and none that I can point as "Look at this guy. He's an atheist yet he does [insert activity of very charitable and moral behaviour at his own expense], something a you'd expect from a saint. Heck, the guy *is* a saint."

And yes, I want to point at an atheist saint. Yes, I am aware of the irony.

[General Zod]

Why do they have to be charity workers or people that've sacrificed themselves? I think you're approaching this from the wrong angle. There's a number of atheist scientists who've arguably done more to advance humanity than any charity worker or religious holy person. As it stands the secular definition of morality tends to be arguably different enough from the fundie version that you'd likely be wasting your time if you ever got into an argument with someone over this.

[Darth Wong]

Religious morality is about self-denial. Other forms of morality (since atheism doesn't really have a moral code) are usually about benefiting society. Scientists (who are more likely to reject theism than any other profession) have benefited society far more than any priest.

Vaccine and pesticide researchers in labs did far more for third-world disease than every missionary who ever lived.

[Rye]

Too short and none that I can point as "Look at this guy. He's an atheist yet he does [insert activity of very charitable and moral behaviour at his own expense], something a you'd expect from a saint. Heck, the guy *is* a saint."

And yes, I want to point at an atheist saint. Yes, I am aware of the irony.

What about Bill Gates? Richest man on the planet, one of the most philanthropic.

[Darth Wong]

What about Bill Gates? Richest man on the planet, one of the most philanthropic.

He's not a really great example, because he only started doing charity after his wife pushed him into it, and his mother had been needling him for years. Once he had been doing it for a while, I do believe that he began to get a real sense of fulfillment out of it, but he didn't really go into it of his own accord.

I think a better question is: can you tie charitable behaviour to religious belief? After all, one could say that 90% of charitable givers in America are religious, but one could also say that 90% of felons in America are religious. The fact is that the vast majority of anything, including charitable givers, tend to be religious in America. It doesn't prove anything about religion vs atheism, so if you try to win some kind of contest by throwing up large numbers of notable people, you probably won't.

[Zixinus]

Why do they have to be charity workers or people that've sacrificed themselves?

Image. Scientists that have done things like develop medicine heve indeed done something great, I have no doubt about that. However, I want to name a guy that clearly is very altruistic at his own expense, and I am talking about dear expense. Stuff like a medical doctor going out into Africa trying to stop diseases and curing people as much as possible, sometimes purchasing medicine for his patients on his own money.

[Zixinus]

I think a better question is: can you tie charitable behaviour to religious belief?

That's what I want to disprove by giving an example.

[General Zod]

Image. Scientists that have done things like develop medicine heve indeed done something great, I have no doubt about that. However, I want to name a guy that clearly is very altruistic at his own expense, and I am talking about dear expense. Stuff like a medical doctor going out into Africa trying to stop diseases and curing people as much as possible, sometimes purchasing medicine for his patients on his own money.

Why bother? All you're doing is attempting to show that other people follow a fundie's version of morality when typically atheists do nothing of the such. Which frankly is a terrible way to approach this kind of argument. Especially if you can't find any such examples. All you have to do is show that they've done more good for humanity as a whole.

[Zixinus]

All you're doing is attempting to show that other people follow a fundie's version of morality when typically atheists do nothing of the such

And I want to do that to disprove the notion that atheists NEVER do such things. That atheist can and are willing to get their hands dirty. Developing medicine is one thing, giving it is another.

[Androsphinx]

Mother Teresa

[General Zod]

And I want to do that to disprove the notion that atheists NEVER do such things. That atheist can and are willing to get their hands dirty. Developing medicine is one thing, giving it is another.

Again, what's the point when it's a bad approach? Even if you manage to find someone who's done so chances are any fundie will dismiss it or say something along the lines of them not really being atheist.

[FSTargetDrone]

Mother Teresa

I know you are joking, but even if she was an atheist, her morality "charitable works" are highly debatable, to say the least.

[Androsphinx]

Mother Teresa

I know you are joking, but even if she was an atheist, her morality "charitable works" are highly debatable, to say the least.

I was referring to the recent publication of some of her personal writings which reveal profound doubts about religious belief. As for the morality of her charitable works, I think that upwards of 500 centres around the world bringing shelter, medical treatment and relief to some of the poorest and most disadvantaged people in the world counts as a plus.

While I mentioned her partly in jest, she's a good one to use in debates because it forces people to either try to claim that she was religious - when you can beat them with all the new data, or try to downplay her accomplishments - which makes for good cinema.

[General Zod]

I was referring to the recent publication of some of her personal writings which reveal profound doubts about religious belief. As for the morality of her charitable works, I think that upwards of 500 centres around the world bringing shelter, medical treatment and relief to some of the poorest and most disadvantaged people in the world counts as a plus.

I suggest searching for some of the Mother Teresa threads on the board, your information is severely out-dated. Most of her medical relief meant providing places for people to die, saying that they were in God's hands and refusing to give out things like medications or birth control. A lot of money she received as donations to help the needy went into her personal bank accounts to never be touched (with full knowledge by the Church). One could make the argument that Bill Gates has done more good than Mother Theresa could hope to have accomplished.

[DavidEC]

A significant problem finding examples is that Christianity and religion in general is much more conducive to filling out a person's identity than atheism is.

My refutation to your hypothetical Zixinius is simply to say that there is nothing in the idea of God which should promote good or bad behaviour. However, it can and will take bad behaviour and intellectually justify it via appeal to God, a very flexible and malleable tool since you can claim whatever you want in his name. Good behaviour, by definition, does not need God to justify it.

[General Zod]

A significant problem finding examples is that Christianity and religion in general is much more conducive to filling out a person's identity than atheism is.

This is only true in the sense that it means people don't have to think for themselves and they can let their religion tell them how to behave.

[Androsphinx]

I was referring to the recent publication of some of her personal writings which reveal profound doubts about religious belief. As for the morality of her charitable works, I think that upwards of 500 centres around the world bringing shelter, medical treatment and relief to some of the poorest and most disadvantaged people in the world counts as a plus.

I suggest searching for some of the Mother Teresa threads on the board, your information is severely out-dated. Most of her medical relief meant providing places for people to die, saying that they were in God's hands and refusing to give out things like medications or birth control. A lot of money she received as donations to help the needy went into her personal bank accounts to never be touched (with full knowledge by the Church). One could make the argument that Bill Gates has done more good than Mother Theresa could hope to have accomplished.

I am aware of that, and of her personal views on the issues of suffering, etc. Fortunately, most of those who act in her name at refuges around the world do not share this philosophy, so I think you can make a good case that they are still a "plus" - a deliberately loose term.

[DavidEC]

I mean it in the quantity of things they say and thus how many opinions, beliefs and actions of a person can be attributed to religion or atheism. Atheism = lack of or no god. The fact that atheists tend to hold the scientific method doesn't really flow from atheism - indeed, it's the reverse. Similarly, you can't generate political beliefs without additional doctrines, and this is demonstrated that the most hardcore communist and hardcore Randians are both atheists, as well as a multitude of people in between. Atheism itself is extremely specific. Ditto for a wide variety of issues.

A given religion = typically a much greater multitude of prescriptions on everything from how to kill your meat to what to do with homosexuals to how to treat women.

You can infer much more from "I am a fundamentalist Christian" than "I am an atheist".

[General Zod]

I am aware of that, and of her personal views on the issues of suffering, etc. Fortunately, most of those who act in her name at refuges around the world do not share this philosophy, so I think you can make a good case that they are still a "plus" - a deliberately loose term.

There is no "philosophy" involved as these are all hard facts. So no, you can't use her if you're attempting to have anything resembling an honest debate on the subject.

[General Zod]

A given religion = typically a much greater multitude of prescriptions on everything from how to kill your meat to what to do with homosexuals to how to treat women.

You can infer much more from "I am a fundamentalist Christian" than "I am an atheist".

And this changes my point how? There is no easy answer with atheism, thus people actually have to think for themselves and create moral guidelines that are completely independent from the religions that exist. In contrast religious nutters can simply shut their brains off and let their priest tell them how to behave.

[Kanastrous]

Stuff like a medical doctor going out into Africa trying to stop diseases and curing people as much as possible, sometimes purchasing medicine for his patients on his own money.

Search through the membership rolls for Medecins Sans Frontiers.

Seems to me a bunch of French doctors who travel the world healing the sick, are more likely to be atheists than most any other group that does that sort of thing.

[Androsphinx]

I am aware of that, and of her personal views on the issues of suffering, etc. Fortunately, most of those who act in her name at refuges around the world do not share this philosophy, so I think you can make a good case that they are still a "plus" - a deliberately loose term.

There is no "philosophy" involved as these are all hard facts. So no, you can't use her if you're attempting to have anything resembling an honest debate on the subject.

If you want to nit-pick my choice of words, just replace what I said with "Fortunately, most of those who act in her name do not share her philosophy and thus do not tell patients 'the pain is Jesus loving you', etc."

For crying out loud, she got the Nobel Peace Prize for humanitarian work! The order she founded has 4,500 members and more than a million co-workers around the world working in AIDS clinics, shelters, soup kitchens and refuges around the world.

And in any case, did you not notice the large next to my mention of her, and suggested her as an -atheist- distinguished for her charitable work. Lighten up!

[DavidEC]

And this changes my point how? There is no easy answer with atheism, thus people actually have to think for themselves and create moral guidelines that are completely independent from the religions that exist. In contrast religious nutters can simply shut their brains off and let their priest tell them how to behave.

Exactly - religion fills that person's identity out much more. Atheism does not do the legwork for you, you fill out your identity yourself. 'Christian' is a more comprehensive answer than 'atheist' to the question 'what are you?' and so the history books are going to be biased; it won't be a comparison between Christian charity workers and atheist charity workers, just Christian charity workers and... charity workers.