I do have a problem with the first sentence that I would like to point out. This religion vs. secularism is actually a dichotomy created by some religious fundies. Many secularists are actually quite religious. They just get the concept of fairness. Jimmy Carter is a secularist he learned it from his preacher father. I have met many religious people who are secularists. While atheists tend to be secularists, atheism doesn’t automatically make you one. If you are actually an anti-religious atheist you really aren’t a secularist.

Don’t blame religion for the charitable work done by many churches. It’s the people. Religion is a powerless idea that only gains whatever power people give it.

Charity is good but this battle, atheism vs. belief isn’t about out-nicing each other. It’s about fact vs. faith.

By the way, The Red Cross is a secular charity.

Jim

Broader picture: religious organisations are known for doing public works (let’s just focus on this aspect, please, and not the other things that they are known for…). So when people join those groups, they join with the expectation (implicit or explicit) that doing some sort of public works will be brought up at some point.

Given a range of social preferences (just charting apathetic to actively interested) amongst humanity, I’d like to assert that knowing that the members of Organisation A ‘sometimes does social outreach stuff’ is, on it’s face, a disincentive to those at the apathetic end of the spectrum.

Meanwhile, knowing that the members of Organisation B ‘talks about science, and also sits in pubs discussing pseudoscience’, this will be a disincentive to those who are actively inclined.

So, all other things being equal (assume, for the sake of it, an equal population of believers and non-believers), we’re not going to have the same distribution of ‘active’ and ‘apathetic’ folk amongst both groups, even if they have the same numerical membership.

I agree that it’s about priorities, but it’s *also* about numbers.

Please don’t read this as “it can’t be done” or “it shouldn’t be done”, just that “given what the current secular organisations are currently known for, I think that it’s fairly unlikely that the membership (in any significant number) would be inclined to do the outreach stuff”.

The groups have their own mandate. If I, personally, were inclined to try this sort of thing (and to be clear up front: I’m not) I would setup a separate organisation with the primary mandate of doing social outreach, and I’d email the other folk in the other organisations that I belonged to looking for ‘active members who want to be involved in a variety of social outreach’.

But maligning people with different priorities than you is an alternative option too, I guess (the “borderline autistic white men who just want to rant about religion instead of doing something good” comment).

I’ll talk a little more on this in my response to Katie.

Now, this doesn’t mean that you need to get involved in charity work, or vice versa doesn’t require you to debunk crap, just support each other through our common groups, or at very least, don’t get in each others way.

Mylegacy:

Can only speak for myself…as an atheist I’m more interested in confronting religion whenever and wherever it raises it’s sordid little head. While I like softy-feely stuff I’ll leave that to the xians and their ilk.
I’d MUCH rather atheist concentrated on using “media” to alert each other to religious posts, statements, etc., that need to be debunked forcefully and immediately. Then, like a biblical swarm of locusts, I see us descending on the offending article and in mass destroying their nonsense.
While you and I would rather not spend eternity in the loving embrace of a self-confessed, multiple-occasion, mass-murdering maniac many do. Our time is best spent hammering their delusions whenever they raise their empty heads above the parapet.

..while I’m not sure how serious you are, I think the general idea is that atheists should do good things to show the world that you don’t need religion to be kind. This is one of the most damning things we can do to them – not yelling at them for their perceived idiocy, but simply peacefully getting rid of the general population’s need for them. And people in real need will benefit at the same time.

Katie:

hanging out with borderline autistic white men who just want to rant about religion instead of doing something good get fairly tiring.

Oh man, WORD. (and you just made me spew coffee when reading this sentence)