How do liberal atheists reconcile the fact that they have agendas similar to religious liberals?

Question

Is it okay to advance a good cause, like fighting poverty, with religious language?

Answer 1

I don't see a real need for reconcilation. I am an atheist and I volunteer at a homeless shelter once a week along side people who are religious. I prefer not to couch my motives in religious language since I am not motivated by religion but by the common bond with all humanity. I don't mind if they choose to do so for religious motivations though so long as they aren't making their help dependent on others accepting their personal beliefs. They have the right to express their reasons as religiously motivated and I have the right to express how my motivations are based on natural compassion. Maybe what we need to realize is that morality, compassion, and the drive to help others can be motivated by factors outside religion. Maybe religion is just one vehicle of expression of something that runs in all humans to reach out to each other, it is not exclusively a religious attribute.

Answer 2

I was taught that global warming (which some people consider a "liberal" idea) is a reality. In fact, my professor listed a bunch of climatology professors at my school who believe that global warming presents a major problem, and also gave us a list of those who didn't. The second list was empty. We also wrote papers about global warming in which we were to research the peer-reviewed scientific literature against it. It turns out there wasn't very much and most of it had been rebutted. (That's right. There actually is a scientific consensus on global warming.) I also had a philosophy professor once argue for god's existence. (Not just present the standard arguments, but actually argue for them.) I'm pretty sure he was a believer. Those are the only two instances I can think of that relate to this point. Everything else was taught without any type of bias.

Answer 3

That would just make people humans who share a common interest. If you are fighting poverty, the language would not be important would it? If the atheist did not write or speak the religious language but promoted an end result, why does it matter?

Answer 4

Thats such a dumb question.

I can't imagine what you might be getting at - so what if an atheist wants to fight poverty and cure disease - is that incompatible with not believing in God?

What is there that needs reconciling. I find it astonishing that after the crusades and the inquisition a religious person has the gall to act like they have a monopoly on humanity!

Answer 5

It's okay. I am atheist. I hesitate to speak to Christians about the poor character of God because they think I'm somehow acknowledging God exists. I actually just want to show them that their text is a poor moral example. The confusion is worth the good point, though. People who cannot understand that are not worth wasting good ideas on.

Answer 6

Should we have to? People do good things for all sorts of reasons just as they do bad things. I would prefer to leave the religious language at home in an ideal world but this is not an ideal world.

Answer 7

Well I'm an Atheist Libertarian and I think the liberal cause should not be advanced at all in most cases. I think it's good if the two groups you mention fight it out and keep each other occupied so nothing gets done.

Answer 8

Personally I wouldn't use religious language, but I wouldn't have a problem working with those who are religious, as long as the respect my views.

Answer 9

Is it the means that matters or the end that matters? Or is it doing the right thing for the right reason? In things that help others, I'd say it's providing the help in the right way i.e. dont give a man with no shoes a shovel; or it's better to help others to help themselves.

Answer 10

One does not need to be religious or use religious language to show concern and compassion for humanity.