Comedian Doug Stanhope raising money ($98,446 so far) for atheist victim of Oklahoma tornado
111 replies, posted
What do these Church Fundraisers aim to achieve?
[QUOTE=Thom12255;40817801]What do these Church Fundraisers aim to achieve?[/QUOTE]
Rebuild churches? Buy supplies for their congregation? Whatever a church would need after a natural disaster hits the area they live in.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40817766]the amount of people arguing against charity in this thread is insane. No empathy at all.[/QUOTE]
Can you stop it with the strawmen please?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40817832]Rebuild churches? Buy supplies for their congregation? Whatever a church would need after a natural disaster hits the area they live in.[/QUOTE]
Can you give a comparable Christian example to this atheist example. You keep saying they happen all the time, but I've personally never seen one.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40817832]Rebuild churches? Buy supplies for their congregation? Whatever a church would need after a natural disaster hits the area they live in.[/QUOTE]
Got any examples to reference? Local Churches usually don't operate like an elitist structure when it comes to charity.
The problem with the Atheist fundraiser is that everyone in this disaster is in the same position yet only one person is getting help from this fundrasier solely because she mentioned her Atheist views on TV and therefore she deserves this whole charity devoted to her solely. It is Stanhope's right to do this but just because you have a right to do something doesn't make it anymore smart to do so. The charity should be for everyone affected regardless (as they are all equals) of if they said they were an atheist on TV.
[QUOTE=RobbL;40817847]Can you stop it with the strawmen please?[/QUOTE]
This is the third or fourth time someone has just bleated "strawman" without actually explaining themselves. Tell me how I'm misconstruing the argument.
[QUOTE=sgman91;40817866]Can you give a comparable Christian example to this atheist example. You keep saying they happen all the time, but I've personally never seen one.[/QUOTE]
I can't give a Christian example of a crowdsourcing campaign giving money to one Christian woman and her family, nor can I find much online evidence for general church fundraisers, but I do know it happens. My sisters church raised a ton of money for church groups in the New Orleans area after Hurricane Katrina.
[editline]28th May 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Thom12255;40817906]Got any examples to reference? Local Churches usually don't operate like an elitist structure when it comes to charity.
The problem with the Atheist fundraiser is that everyone in this disaster is in the same position yet only one person is getting help from this fundrasier solely because she mentioned her Atheist views on TV and therefore she deserves this whole charity devoted to her solely. It is Stanhope's right to do this but just because you have a right to do something doesn't make it anymore smart to do so. The charity should be for everyone affected regardless (as they are all equals) of if they said they were an atheist on TV.[/QUOTE]
So like I said before, start an indiegogo campaign for every single person or, better yet, donate to the Red Cross who uses donation money entirely indiscriminately. This fundraiser doesn't stop you from donating to any number of charities that would help the people of Oklahoma. Some guy just thought he would help one person because he felt like it. From an entirely practical point of view at the end of the day, it's one family getting their house back. To me this outweighs any ulterior motives Stanhope might have had.
And as I've said, if you want to talk about the cold, calculating allocation of funds, donating towards tornado victims in Oklahoma is far less efficient than donating to cancer/AIDS research or malaria treatment and prevention.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40817766] but the amount of people arguing against charity in this thread is insane. No empathy at all.[/QUOTE]
Oh boo hoo. No one wants to hear your blubbering and hilariously badly thought out strawmen.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40817972]I can't give a Christian example of a crowdsourcing campaign giving money to one Christian woman and her family, nor can I find much online evidence for general church fundraisers, but I do know it happens. My sisters church raised a ton of money for church groups in the New Orleans area after Hurricane Katrina.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, an anecdote just won't cut it. Especially when you don't even know the specifics of your own anecdote (how much raised? exactly who was it given to? etc. etc.).
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;40818161]Oh boo hoo. No one wants to hear your blubbering and hilariously badly thought out strawmen.[/QUOTE]
If one more person shouts strawman without elaborating I get a free ice cream cone.
[editline]28th May 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=sgman91;40818207]Sorry, an anecdote just won't cut it.[/QUOTE]
Sorry to hear that.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40818221]If one more person shouts strawman without elaborating I get a free ice cream cone.[/QUOTE]
Saying "I don't like this group only giving to atheist" is the same as "I don't like charity."
[QUOTE]Sorry to hear that.[/QUOTE]
It has nothing to do with my opinion of what works as evidence and everything to do with vague anecdotes being useless when making an argument.
[QUOTE=Thom12255;40817454]I was under the impression that most Christian charities are setup like this - [url]http://www.christianaid.org.uk/aboutus/who/aims/our_aims.aspx[/url]
[/QUOTE]
idk if this specific group does, but generally these charities have a little catch with them.
"Christian Aid states it works where the need is greatest, regardless of religion*, nationality or race."
*we will also make sure to prosthelytize and convert you to our religion aggressively.
that's a large part of the reason why responsible charity exists. the dude who runs it wanted a charitable organization that would help people without the added missionary work. the goal is for more secular aid.
[QUOTE=Durrsly;40818240]Saying "I don't like this group only giving to atheist" is the same as "I don't like charity."[/QUOTE]
Well it's charity. A guy walking down the sidewalk giving a homeless person $1 is charity. So you only dislike certain charity?
[QUOTE=sgman91;40818259]It has nothing to do with my opinion of what works as evidence and everything to do with vague anecdotes being useless when making an argument.[/QUOTE]
My argument was an anecdote if anything. I don't go to church, nor am I particularly interested in driving to local churches to see which ones are donating charity where. I just know it's something that happens. I can't prove it so you got me there though.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40818412] My argument was an anecdote if anything.[/QUOTE]
Good, we can agree that no argument exists and can move on to other sticking points.
[QUOTE]Well it's charity. A guy walking down the sidewalk giving a homeless person $1 is charity. So you only dislike certain charity?[/QUOTE]
The purpose of a charity is what makes a charity moral or immoral, not the effect of the charity. If I were to start a charity for the rebels in Syria for the sole purpose that they might then win and go on a genocidal rampage my charity would be immoral, even though I'm technically helping someone.
*Note: I'm NOT equating the charity in question with that example. I'm simply showing, with an extreme, how charity on it's own isn't inherently moral.
It seems, from all the evidence we have, that this specific charity was started because the woman was atheist, not because she was in need. If the purpose was to help a woman in need her atheism would be a moot point, but that obviously isn't the case. The money was given as A DIRECT RESULT of her claiming to be atheistic on TV.
So now the question is whether it's moral to give charity to someone based solely on their claimed religious beliefs.
[QUOTE=sgman91;40818769]
The purpose of a charity is what makes a charity moral or immoral, not the effect of the charity. If I were to start a charity for the rebels in Syria for the sole purpose that they might then win and go on a genocidal rampage my charity would be immoral, even though I'm technically helping someone.
[/QUOTE]
If you are just straight up giving money to a rebel group in another country, I don't think that is charity. If you are giving them aid like medical supplies that is charity. The former is more financially backing a military force, the latter is something that western countries do all the time. It's an interesting concept though, the idea that charity is not always inherently moral. I'd argue that charities for specific religious groups is fine, but I'd also find the idea of a charity specifically for white people, or black people, or Jewish people who happened to live in Oklahoma would seem much more bizarre.
[QUOTE=sgman91;40818769]It seems, from all the evidence we have, that this specific charity was started because the woman was atheist, not because she was in need. If the purpose was to help a woman in need her atheism would be a moot point, but that obviously isn't the case. The money was given as A DIRECT RESULT of her claiming to be atheistic on TV.[/QUOTE]
I don't think so. Plenty of people go on TV as atheists and charities aren't started for them. In the news video it's implied that their house, if not completely destroyed, was entirely unlivable. And even if we were to say he did it specifically because she was an atheist, in all practical terms, at the end of the day, it's one more person who has been helped out in their time of dire need, so I find it hard to hate on the implied motivations. We are just guessing at this point anyway.
[QUOTE=sgman91;40818769]So now the question is whether it's moral to give charity to someone based solely on their claimed religious beliefs.[/QUOTE]
I can't say I'd have a problem with it. If this was a story about how a famous Christian comedian started a crowdsourcing campaign for someone who thanked god on TV I'd think it a heartwarming display of charity and empathy, same as the atheist one.
The criticism in this thread's got nothing to do with him donating money to someone in need, it's the fact he implied that this women was more deserving of the money because she shares the same beliefs as him
It's not that hard to see
[QUOTE=RobbL;40819458]The criticism in this thread's got nothing to do with him donating money to someone in need, it's the fact he implied that this women was more deserving of the money because she shares the same beliefs as him
It's not that hard to see[/QUOTE]
yeah and the problem is that occurs with christians as well
i see it as less of a making money for one person is bad
and more of a making a point
also it's kinda rude to ask someone if they thank god for something without knowing their religious beliefs
[editline]28th May 2013[/editline]
a church group would fundraise to help members of the congregation get back on their feet after a disaster
why are atheists not allowed to fundraise for atheists?
[QUOTE=RobbL;40819458]The criticism in this thread's got nothing to do with him donating money to someone in need, it's the fact he implied that this women was more deserving of the money because she shares the same beliefs as him
It's not that hard to see[/QUOTE]
That was never implied, and there are plenty of criticisms about him donating money to someone in need. The opening post goes so far as to call it selfish and it's got over 100 agrees.
Power to Doug Stanhope. As much as I disagree with limiting your charity to a certain group of people, I really don't think that's what this is about. This thought is purely speculative, but I imagine it more as being a "Wow, this woman's story is touching. It's amazing how strong she can be in the face of all this terrible shit. We should help her." Then again, I don't know if I'm just understanding it the way I want. It might be a bit of a stretch from "Wish someone would start a fund solely for the chick who told Blitzer she was an atheist".
The main thing though, who cares who it's for? He has his beliefs and her story inspired him to raise some money for her. It's not like he's saying, "No one donate to other charities, if you're an atheist, you should try to only support other atheists." That's like being pissed off because Bill Gates's Millennium Scholarship isn't available for white students. We can disagree all we want with that (which I think everyone should), but there is no reason to call Bill Gates an alcoholic clown.
In fact, I'd go a step further and say that if he made the charity for all tornado victims, I think that he probably wouldn't raise as much money and it probably wouldn't have been news posted here. I think that this focus on the atheism aspect is important after considering his fan-base. I think that this story could possibly inspire other atheists to donate more so than a charity dedicated to all would. Just like someone said earlier about a dog fan creating a charity for the woman who had lost her dog. I think that a charity like that could possibly inspire dog owners who might not have cared enough to donate, to donate.
It just seems like a big deal is being made for little reason. I don't know what annoys me more on facepunch, militant atheism or militant anti-militant-atheism.
I've noticed that lately Stanhope seems to be taking a turn to a more compassionate kind of viewpoint than usual. I wonder what caused that, he seems a lot less nihilistic and "libertarian" lately than previously. I remember he mentioned watching The Century of the Self (great BBC Documentary by Adam Curtis) on the Joe Rogan podcast at some stage. Maybe it flipped a switch...
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.