You don’t need religion to have morals.
You don’t need a deity to have strength.
You don’t need a church to be charitable.
You don’t need theistic faith to make it through the day.
You are NOT broken.
You are whole.
You are enough.
*note if one of the things above help you, that’s wonderful this is a reminder that it isn’t a necessity.*
Just a short response to your third point. You don’t need a church but you do need a faith.
(According to Barna Research Group 2007 updated 2012) Both “No-Faith” and “Active Faith” groups were equally “likely to think of themselves as good citizens, as placing their family first, as being loyal and reliable individuals, as preferring to be in control, and as being leaders,” and they reported comparable personal difficulties including serious debt and addiction. However, additional results show that there are some significant differences:
- “No-Faith” individuals are less likely than active-faith Americans to be registered to vote (78% versus 89%)
- They are less likely than active-faith Americans to describe themselves as “active in the community” (41% versus 68%)
- They are less likely than active-faith Americans to personally help or serve a homeless or poor person (41% versus 61%).
- They are less likely than active-faith Americans to volunteer to help a non-church-related non-profit (20% versus 30%)
- The typical no-faith American donated just $200 to charitable causes in 2006, more than seven times less than the amount contributed by the typical active-faith adult ($1500).
- Even subtracting church-based giving, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars to charitable causes last year than atheists and agnostics.
- 22% of “no-faith” adults failed to contribute any personal funds to charitable causes in 2006, compared to only 7% of active-faith adults.
- Atheists and agnostics were more likely to be focused on acquiring wealth than Christians (10% versus 2%)
- No-Faith adults embrace the description or perception of being “at peace,” less than Christians (67% versus 90%)
- Atheists and agnostics are more likely to feel stressed out (37% versus 26%).
Many of these statistics seem to indicate that, despite claims to the contrary, atheism on the whole does in fact tend to be less family oriented, less involved in the community and civics, and less compassionate and generous. As such, they lend some credibility to the notion that at least some kinds of morality or magnanimity require a foundation in Faith.
Also interesting is the fact that since only 1/5 of the “No-Faith” group are unequivocal in their rejection of the existence of God and adopting the label “Atheist,” the vast majority harbor doubts about their rejection of faith.
Also, Christian charity far surpasses giving of any other sector in the United States. Think about all of the Christian Hospitals, orphanages, adoption agencies, women’s centers, community centers, international relief, disaster relief, Christian Schools, after school programs, scholarships, colleges and Universities. Lets not forget advances in medicine, the arts, music, paintings, sculpture, architecture and the sciences,
I am sure there are some very good atheist hospitals and atheist adoption agencies, some great atheist founded colleges and tons of atheistic disaster relief organizations, but I have never heard of them.
Bottom line is that you can paint Christians in any color you want but if you scratch the surface, you will find caring, loving, generous people. These are not the monsters you wish they were. The truth is we love all of mankind and pray that all come to a fully knowledge of God. In love.
You may not have missed the asterisk (as stated in later replys to others), but you did miss the point.
First and foremost, I was not painting Christians in any light, in fact Christians were not once mentioned. I began this blog because I didn’t support all of the negative anti-theistic atheist blogs that are everywhere, so this idea that I’m attempting or want to make out Christians as monsters is beyond wrong. I support everyone’s right to religion, and as long as you aren’t hurting anyone I will happily fight for any theists rights.
Now on to the discussion of my third statement in the original post: I was not in any way claiming that atheists, agnostics, secularists, or any other irreligious person or group has done more charitable things than a religious one. Religions are huge communities and have been united a lot longer than irreligious individuals have(therefore, with no doubt, have done more in every category).
There are two definitions of charity, the groups, and the individuals. Neither require a religious organization. You stated yourself that secular charitable groups exist(and to claim that no atheist, agnostic, secularist, or otherwise irreligious individual has ever given or participated in a charitable event without the backing of a church would simply be ridiculous) therefore you agree with my point.
The post was a reminder for individuals that lack a religion. It was encouragement for more irreligious individuals to do good and be strong – I’m not quite sure how you found something negative in that.
It was a reminder that they don’t NEED a church to be charitable. (that was the exact wording) and you argued a point that was never made. You attempted to argue that Christians aren’t bad and that they have done more charity, neither of which was a claim I made. My only claim was that you can be charitable without a religion.
As for your statistics, I would say 2006(so is 2007-2012) is a bit outdated, especially considering the increase in irreligious and the fact that the more acceptable secularism becomes the less people lie about their secularism. Though there is no denying that religious orgs have and probably will continue for a bit to donate more time, money, and have more charity organizations. Again you seemed to have missed the point of my post changing the conversation entirely, you went on a tangent of your own. Perhaps make your own post dedicated to the subject? Good-life to you friend!