Hilarious and expected responses. Any first year philosopher knows that all knowledge requires faith. Including assumptions about how we know things.

Of course, the common bait and switch tactics are quite evident here.

Claiming on one hand that you, as an individual, has not found proof of God (technically called agnosticism) is one thing. Claiming that God doesn't exist (technically called atheism) is another. This second option is inherent in all the writings of Dawkins. Dawkins has faith that no-one can have warranted belief in God...so he is claiming not only that he hasn't found proof of God's existence, but also that no-one CAN find proof of God's existence (which of course, is only tenable if God really doesn't exist). This is of course, a stealth atheist faith claim. People here who claim otherwise are simply being disingenuous.

Others claim that there are no atheist organisations at all, so how could there be atheist charities (Daviy et al). Um...Skeptics organisations, an organisation organised the atheist convention, Atheist Agenda (who do a bible/porn exchange program)...so many organisations exist, and they are evangelical.

Moral of the story...before you critique an article, try and have a post that is at least remotely accurate.

Whichever editor approved this piece of inflammatory rubbish is getting very perverse in their old age.

Not believing in something and not following rituals for the non-belief in something IS NOT A FAITH.

No more argument to be entered into, apart from the demonstrable evidence for many non-faith charities and humane societies that are not religion based.

And a final note: ONLY the Faith-Based-charities have another agenda - CONVERTS.

Sure good to see the instant crowd of posts to declaim this piece of trivia, hoping that this thread dies out just as quickly.

@The Blue Cross: is Rowan a fashion journalist or a sports journalist, I wonder?

See http://au.christiantoday.com/article/interview-rowan-forster-christian-broadcaster/6601.htm "Rowan Forster Christian Broadcaster"

@Rowan Forster: any charitable enterprise or benevolent agency that was directly and specifically inspired by atheism, founded by devout sceptics, staffed by dedicated nihilists, and fervently supported by devoted anti-religious non-believers. The very concept sounds almost self-contradictory.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is, according to Wikipedia, the largest transparently operated private foundation in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_&_Melinda_Gates_Foundation

It is funded primarily by Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Both are self proclaimed atheists. http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/Main_Page

It has been shown time and time again, when it comes to doing pro bono work - eg doctors waving fees for the poor, atheists do as at least much as their religious brethren. http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2007/08/20/prsb0820.htm

Severin makes a good point. Conversion is not exactly an altruistic motive, not to mention the harm done to children by some religious charities.

This is not to ignore the good that many religious groups do, many of them do not push the religious agenda quite so much as before.

However if I was needy I would hope for support from those without an agenda other than simply helping another human being.

mikk
stamp collecting - that is probably the best analogy yet. Still laughing.

Other comments left me wondering if this article was not intended merely as a baiting exercise. Its claims are too simplistic.

What a pile of dribble

Here we go again.
Atheism a faith?
There is no evidence for God, and no way of proving God false.
Just like pink unicorns, flying teapots and fairies at the bottom of my garden. Once and for all, the burden of proof is on theists. Why should I accept a hypothesis with no evidence?
Atheists not charitable?
A ridiculous argument, but by way of refutation: The wealth of the Catholic Church in Australia alone is estimated at over $150 billion, with all other churches $220 billion. They don't pay taxes, don't file tax returns, get government concessions and grants, often rely on a volunteer workforce and have zero accountability or transparency. How much do these churches spend on genuine charitable works? Next to nothing when compared with their wealth and revenues.
By comparison, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, both atheists, are donating $70 billion to charity, mainly for the elimination of disease in the third world. In Buffett's case this is 85% of his wealth. A fine example for the church to follow you might think, but don't hold your breath.
So are church charitable works a cover for tax-free wealth creation? Let's separate the genuinely charitable works from their business/religious activities and apply proper taxes to the latter. I wonder how strongly charity would then figure in their activities........