« Tebowing to the God of Football | Main | Stadium Prayer to the God of Perfect Stats »



Enjoyed the post, then went back to the Australian blogger's post.
My thought after reading it was the truth of the statement repeated by Eisenhower in '54, "There are no atheists in foxholes". It is ALWAYS just a matter of time.
With atheists we can also add "There are no atheists at Charities, there are no atheists helping the blind, there are no atheists..." I could go on.

tom sheepandgoats

I suspect foxholes create more atheists than they convert.


From the article "In short, all that was noble and self-sacrificing is replaced today with all that is cowardly and self-serving. That's the relevance of 2 Tim 3:1-5. Tell that to fatheads that can's see any change in people!"

Though I am likely a "fathead" your statement is in many ways sad but true. If only more people would surrender themselves to Jehovah and His Word.

tom sheepandgoats

Many expressions I use are from my Pop's day and I just don't want to see them go extinct, out of respect for him. But if you detect a change in people over the decades, likely the label does not apply to you.


I've heard something similar too, about atheists being created in foxholes.

Also Jeff, there are atheist charities, not to mention secular charities that don't get involved with religion. (And some of these charities involve leader dogs.)

tom sheepandgoats


I would think any believers created in foxholes would be Tebow type believers....God, please get me out of this SPOT. Whereas, sans explanation as to why God would permit such atrocities, the foxhole experience might more likely kill any notion of God. It did for some I can think of. Not foxhole, per se, you understand. Just the whole war experience, which we may symbolize by 'foxholes.'

And yes, I agree there are atheists involved in charities, and most likely atheist charities. And agnostic ones. I wonder if the nature of the charity changes according to believing/non-believing outlook. Do you have thoughts on this?


The way one approaches a problem is often through one's morals and ethics. I think what ideologies the charity has will influence it's direction. For some, it will be religious in nature.

I know of some Christian charities that will hand out bibles instead of food to starving people.

Look at the atrocities that Mother Theresa did in the name of her Catholic faith.

To both of these charities, it was more important that the people suffering understand that they were suffering because God was showing them love; he was sharing his agony on the cross with them.

The only thing in common that atheists have is a lack of belief in God(s). Many of them identify as humanists and so many of their charities will take up humanist-calls. For many, this includes access to health care, including women's health care, and education, including women's education. I think the lack of a central book and the hugely divergent ideas makes it difficult to attribute much to specifically being an atheist. It isn't their atheism, after all, that is driving their morals; it is their humanism or whatever other philosophies they identify with.

Likewise, some Christian charities are driven less by their want of converting everyone and more about actually helping people who need help. (Christian humanists.) These are the Christian charities that operate the food kitchens for the homeless or set up clothing drives.

And some groups don't need religion or the lack of religion to become extreme. Just look at PETA.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Dear Mr Putin (1) (1)
Dear Mr. Putin - Jehovah's Witnesses Write Russia
Tom Irregardless (3)
Purchase or Free Preview 30%
No Fake News But Plenty of Hogwash
Purchase or 30% Free Preview
My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad