RE: Atheists more compassionate than believers, study finds (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Yachtie -> RE: Atheists more compassionate than believers, study finds (5/15/2012 8:49:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
My only issue with church donations is that portions of church donations go to maintaining the church itself and to the proselytizing efforts of churches. Not really the same thing in my mind as donating food to a food bank.


What's more important to the Christian, today's food or life eternal? Hard to judge others by one's own priorities.



tweakabelle -> RE: Atheists more compassionate than believers, study finds (5/15/2012 8:52:23 PM)

quote:

The truth is, "believers" are all generous without equal. What is missed in this "study" is that only ten to thrith perrcent on average of any church are mature "believers" who order their lives in agreement with their faith, their belief. The rest are those who lack real passionate belief and so they do not order their life and their works based on being a "believer". These are the "children" of the faith who are still growing in that faith but lack the great works derived from such belief, such faith, which is where one can get the impression believers are not as generous as you would think.


This is a classic example of how an adherent of any ideology - the particular ideology doesn't really matter - edits the data to make their own world view credible and sustainable.

Firstly a wild claim "The truth is, "believers" are all generous without equal". Of course, this claim is unsupported by any independent evidence and utterly self serving.

Then the data is doctored to suit the claim. Apparently "only ten to thrith perrcent [sic] on average of any church are mature "believers" who order their lives in agreement with their faith, their belief." So all the other church attendees are eliminated as apparently not up to the required standard. These people are said to lack "real passionate" belief (whatever that might mean). The criterion here doesn't really matter, what is critical is that is something that denies authenticity to anyone else's experience, if their experience differs in any way from that of the speaker. So criteria like "real" or "true" are perfect and infinitely adaptable. Any evidence that invalidates the initial claim is dismissed as it is from someone whose belief is "untrue/unreal/false". A perfect self-serving circularity is constructed. Of course whatever data remains after this culling process 'proves' the claim - in the mind of the "believer".

How any independent observer might attach any credibility to this process is something that will have to be explained to me in careful, painstaking detail by some one who is very very patient. [;)]

However, for all of you who have been waiting for details on a crash course on "How to thoroughly delude yourself and others" the wait is over. No need to look any further than the above post. Just alter the occasional noun here and there to suit the ideology at hand.



Arturas -> RE: Atheists more compassionate than believers, study finds (5/15/2012 9:16:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

The truth is, "believers" are all generous without equal. What is missed in this "study" is that only ten to thrith perrcent on average of any church are mature "believers" who order their lives in agreement with their faith, their belief. The rest are those who lack real passionate belief and so they do not order their life and their works based on being a "believer". These are the "children" of the faith who are still growing in that faith but lack the great works derived from such belief, such faith, which is where one can get the impression believers are not as generous as you would think.


This is a classic example of how an adherent of any ideology - the particular ideology doesn't really matter - edits the data to make their own world view credible and sustainable.

Firstly a wild claim "The truth is, "believers" are all generous without equal". Of course, this claim is unsupported by any independent evidence and utterly self serving.

Then the data is doctored to suit the claim. Apparently "only ten to thrith perrcent [sic] on average of any church are mature "believers" who order their lives in agreement with their faith, their belief." So all the other church attendees are eliminated as apparently not up to the required standard. These people are said to lack "real passionate" belief (whatever that might mean). The criterion here doesn't really matter, what is critical is that is something that denies authenticity to anyone else's experience, if their experience differs in any way from that of the speaker. So criteria like "real" or "true" are perfect and infinitely adaptable. Any evidence that invalidates the initial claim is dismissed as it is from someone whose belief is "untrue/unreal/false". A perfect self-serving circularity is constructed. Of course whatever data remains after this culling process 'proves' the claim - in the mind of the "believer".

How any independent observer might attach any credibility to this process is something that will have to be explained to me in careful, painstaking detail by some one who is very very patient. [;)]

However, for all of you who have been waiting for details on a crash course on "How to thoroughly delude yourself and others" the wait is over. No need to look any further than the above post. Just alter the occasional noun here and there to suit the ideology at hand.


quote:

Firstly a wild claim "The truth is, "believers" are all generous without equal". Of course, this claim is unsupported by any independent evidence and utterly self serving.


Hardly wild. Anyone with any experience in "church" know there is a core of believers generous without equal and the rest are are not quite there yet. Churches are not just for singing songs on Sunday, they are places where this 10 percent can administer to the others who still must grow in the faith. This 10 percent also lead the others in giving and "generosity". So, any poll that throws the 90 pecent who are still growing in their faith in with the 10 percent core group will water down their "generosity" findings for "believers". So saying "believers" are less generous that non-believers is a bit like MSNBC lumping in the non-voting Democrates with the voting Democrates in their polls on "Obama's stance on Gay Unions" and based on this finding the Democratic "faithful" less excited and supportive of Obama now than Independents.




fucktoyprincess -> RE: Atheists more compassionate than believers, study finds (5/15/2012 9:26:30 PM)

Okay from looking further into the Brooks book, he looked at the following types of charitable giving:

Religious organizations, combinations organizations (e.g. United Way), organizations to help the poor, health organizations, education organizations, youth organizations, arts and culture organizations, community development organizations, environmental organizations, international organizations.

Annually, religious people give $1678 to non-secular causes (i.e, religious) and $532 per year to secular charities; non-religous gave $175 to non-secular (i.e., religious) and $467 to secular charities. So I don't see much difference on the secular giving. And wouldn't we expect religious people to give more to religious organizations??? What is amazing is that the non-religous actually gave $175 to religious organizations. Go figure.

So Brooks is basically saying that religious people make religious donations. In other words they support their churches /mosques/ temples/ synagogues. Okay. Great. Would we not expect religious people to support their religious organizations? And we see from Kali's article that 84% of religious giving goes to overhead. So essentially they are spending most of their money supporting the operation of a private organization that has tax-exempt status.

In addition, Brooks does not break down any of the non-secular giving to indicate how much is going to the poor vs. how much is going to education organizations (e.g. a donation to Harvard University would constitute a charitable donation to an educational organization, as would a donation to a child's private prep school) vs how much is going to arts and culture organizations (e.g., a donation to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, would count as a charitable donation to arts and culture organizations) vs youth organizations (e.g. the local youth soccer teams) vs organizations to help the poor (e.g. Habitat for Humanity). Yes, I agree it's all charity, but I think the OP was focused more on the particular charity of organizations to help the poor, etc.

Again, saying that the religious give to their religious organization is kind of a given, isn't it? Did Brooks really need a whole study to show that religious people who attend religious services regularly support their houses of worship?? [&:]



fucktoyprincess -> RE: Atheists more compassionate than believers, study finds (5/15/2012 9:27:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
My only issue with church donations is that portions of church donations go to maintaining the church itself and to the proselytizing efforts of churches. Not really the same thing in my mind as donating food to a food bank.


What's more important to the Christian, today's food or life eternal? Hard to judge others by one's own priorities.


I'm not saying they shouldn't support what they want to support. I'm just saying that much of that money does not go to the needy. That's all I'm saying.



GotSteel -> RE: Atheists more compassionate than believers, study finds (5/15/2012 9:28:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas
Hardly wild. Anyone with any experience in "church" know there is a core of believers generous without equal and the rest are are not quite there yet.


One of my friends parents retired and now spends their time doing missionary work (I think building churches) so I suppose they are the sort you're talking about. Of course they also tossed their daughter out on the street in high-school when they found out she was gay. Personally I can't help but think we really could do without more of those kinds of churches.



GotSteel -> RE: Atheists more compassionate than believers, study finds (5/15/2012 9:31:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
My only issue with church donations is that portions of church donations go to maintaining the church itself and to the proselytizing efforts of churches. Not really the same thing in my mind as donating food to a food bank.

What's more important to the Christian, today's food or life eternal? Hard to judge others by one's own priorities.


Yeah a good chuck of what you guys consider charity is pretty clearly an advertising budget to us. But even among the faithful at some point the question how many fancy hats does the pope really need must come up.



GotSteel -> RE: Atheists more compassionate than believers, study finds (5/15/2012 9:46:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
GotSteel, I've rethought my position - I think one study may, in this case, be enough.....[&:]


With all the fervor among the faithful to oppress women and lgbt's of late as well as the fury at Obama care I'm rather depressed about just how low the bar has been set when it comes to compassion.

That's it I'm off enjoy the topic everyone I probably won't have time to join in again until Monday.



MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Atheists more compassionate than believers, study finds (5/15/2012 9:50:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

...they are looking at different things.



That may very well be true... I dunno?!!  Does ANYONE have an actual link to DOWNLOAD THE STUDY -- all I've seen are articles referencing the study, but no way to view the ACTUAL STUDY, at least not without paying for it?!!

I ask because, based on what I've seen of the alleged data, no rational person could draw such a conclusion from the following:

In the first experiment, researchers analyzed data from a 2004 national survey of more than 1,300 American adults. Those who agreed with such statements as “When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective towards them” were also more inclined to show generosity in random acts of kindness, such as loaning out belongings and offering a seat on a crowded bus or train, researchers found.
 
In the second experiment, 101 American adults watched one of two brief videos, a neutral video or a heartrending one, which showed portraits of children afflicted by poverty. Next, they were each given 10 “lab dollars” and directed to give any amount of that money to a stranger
 
In the final experiment, more than 200 college students were asked to report how compassionate they felt at that moment. They then played “economic trust games” in which they were given money to share – or not – with a stranger.

http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/04/30/religionandgenerosity/


Thus, if the above is accurate:

1)  The first data set is based on if someone "agreed" with a statement -- i.e., no actual money/time given.

2)  The second data set is based on "lab dollars" -- i.e., no actual money/time given.

3)  The third data set is based on how "compassionate" one "felt" -- i.e., no actual money/time given.


Compare the above to ACTUAL MONEY/TIME GIVEN, as referenced by Brooks' data in "Who Really Cares", and it's difficult to take the alleged "study" with any real seriousness.  Again, if the above is accurate, then it's more of a JOKE than any type of valid/predictive study?!!




MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Atheists more compassionate than believers, study finds (5/15/2012 9:51:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: littlewonder

But I wasn't speaking ONLY of money. He's upset that many are not volunteering and donating time even...



Ahh... I see.




SternSkipper -> RE: Atheists more compassionate than believers, study finds (5/15/2012 10:14:19 PM)

quote:

Atheists have to stop being passive, and stand up to be counted, otherwise, society is doomed to repeat its most shameful mistakes. DOOOOOOOOOMED!


Great Idea... maybe an outlaw motorcycle club "Hell's Atheists" maybe. How are you at making crystal meth?



tweakabelle -> RE: Atheists more compassionate than believers, study finds (5/16/2012 3:55:32 AM)



quote:

Arturas



The truth is, "believers" are all generous without equal. What is missed in this "study" is that only ten to thrith perrcent on average of any church are mature "believers" who order their lives in agreement with their faith, their belief. The rest are those who lack real passionate belief and so they do not order their life and their works based on being a "believer". These are the "children" of the faith who are still growing in that faith but lack the great works derived from such belief, such faith, which is where one can get the impression believers are not as generous as you would think.

quote:

tweakabelle

This is a classic example of how an adherent of any ideology - the particular ideology doesn't really matter - edits the data to make their own world view credible and sustainable.

Firstly a wild claim "The truth is, "believers" are all generous without equal". Of course, this claim is unsupported by any independent evidence and utterly self serving.

Then the data is doctored to suit the claim. Apparently "only ten to thrith perrcent [sic] on average of any church are mature "believers" who order their lives in agreement with their faith, their belief." So all the other church attendees are eliminated as apparently not up to the required standard. These people are said to lack "real passionate" belief (whatever that might mean). The criterion here doesn't really matter, what is critical is that is something that denies authenticity to anyone else's experience, if their experience differs in any way from that of the speaker. So criteria like "real" or "true" are perfect and infinitely adaptable. Any evidence that invalidates the initial claim is dismissed as it is from someone whose belief is "untrue/unreal/false". A perfect self-serving circularity is constructed. Of course whatever data remains after this culling process 'proves' the claim - in the mind of the "believer".

How any independent observer might attach any credibility to this process is something that will have to be explained to me in careful, painstaking detail by some one who is very very patient.

However, for all of you who have been waiting for details on a crash course on "How to thoroughly delude yourself and others" the wait is over. No need to look any further than the above post. Just alter the occasional noun here and there to suit the ideology at hand.


Hardly wild. Anyone with any experience in "church" know there is a core of believers generous without equal and the rest are are not quite there yet. Churches are not for singing songs on Sunday, they are places where this 10 percent can administer to the others who still must grow in the faith. This 10 percent also lead the others in giving and "generosity". So, any poll that throws the 90 pecent who are still growing in their faith in with the 10 percent core group will water down their "generosity" findings for "believers".


I actually qualify as a person with some "experience in "church"" (I was forced to attend church for the first part of my life by my parents). I didn't observe the 90/10 split you claim is obvious. So some independent evidence to support your claims please.

Naturally, if we accept your claim that only 10% of churchgoers are "real" Christians, we will have to revise downwards the number of American Christians from 50% of the population to a mere 5% of the population. Which makes Christians a very noisy minority and eliminates any arguments that rely on a concept of the US as "Christian nation".

Of course that is before we consult the excluded 90% (I'm assuming you count yourself as one of the 10% of "true" believers). I'd imagine they might have a few less than Christian things to say about their exclusion and those who have excluded them (well, with them not being "real" Christians, they could hardly help themselves I suppose ....).

Or, indeed, before we consult the Bible which has a few passages about leaving judgements to God, if I recall correctly. So, quite apart from making the speaker sound pretty ridiculous, some pretty wild consequences flow from your supposedly "not wild" claims.



DomKen -> RE: Atheists more compassionate than believers, study finds (5/16/2012 11:33:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: littlewonder

At our church what we donate, 75% right now goes towards missions to help build churches in other places, or giving money to other pastors to help them start a church in their area,

Maybe if you think about it you can see why some people do not view that as charitable giving.



DomKen -> RE: Atheists more compassionate than believers, study finds (5/16/2012 11:38:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas
The truth is, "believers" are all generous without equal. What is missed in this "study" is that only ten to thrith perrcent on average of any church are mature "believers" who order their lives in agreement with their faith, their belief. The rest are those who lack real passionate belief and so they do not order their life and their works based on being a "believer". These are the "children" of the faith who are still growing in that faith but lack the great works derived from such belief, such faith, which is where one can get the impression believers are not as generous as you would think.

Looks like todays logical fallacy is "No True Scotsman."




thompsonx -> RE: Atheists more compassionate than believers, study finds (5/16/2012 11:46:19 AM)

Fr

Here is a pretty easy test:
Which is more ethical someone who does the right thing because it is the right thing
or:
Someone who does the right thing because they fear god is going to fuck over them if they do not do the right thing?



Kirata -> RE: Atheists more compassionate than believers, study finds (5/16/2012 12:02:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Which is more ethical someone who does the right thing because it is the right thing
or:
Someone who does the right thing because they fear god is going to fuck over them if they do not do the right thing?

To answer that question requires accepting its embedded premise, namely, that religious people do the right thing only because they fear divine retribution. And when it suits someone's purpose to argue the other side of the fallacy, then we will hear how Christians think they can get away with anything because they know they'll be "forgiven."

K.



thompsonx -> RE: Atheists more compassionate than believers, study finds (5/16/2012 12:19:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Which is more ethical someone who does the right thing because it is the right thing
or:
Someone who does the right thing because they fear god is going to fuck over them if they do not do the right thing?

To answer that question requires accepting its embedded premise, namely, that religious people do the right thing only because they fear divine retribution. And when it suits someone's purpose to argue the other side of the fallacy, then we will hear how Christians think they can get away with anything because they know they'll be "forgiven."

K.


Is not divine retribution a major tennent of religion?
Is not divine retribution the punishment for not doing what god has told you to do?
Does not god charge all to love one another and not just one another's wife?
I think we are both on the same page.



Moonhead -> RE: Atheists more compassionate than believers, study finds (5/16/2012 12:23:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
And when it suits someone's purpose to argue the other side of the fallacy, then we will hear how Christians think they can get away with anything because they know they'll be "forgiven."

Are Calvinists viewed as being Christians on your side of the pond? I thought they were weird pagan heretics like the Catholics and the Mormons...



DomKen -> RE: Atheists more compassionate than believers, study finds (5/16/2012 1:32:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
To answer that question requires accepting its embedded premise, namely, that religious people do the right thing only because they fear divine retribution.

Isn't that the underlying argument when people claim moral behavior is impossible for the areligious?

quote:

And when it suits someone's purpose to argue the other side of the fallacy, then we will hear how Christians think they can get away with anything because they know they'll be "forgiven."

That's called "once saved always saved" and is quite common in Baptist and evangelical churches. It is certainly no fallacy but a foundational belief of those sects.



fucktoyprincess -> RE: Atheists more compassionate than believers, study finds (5/16/2012 2:37:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Fr

Here is a pretty easy test:
Which is more ethical someone who does the right thing because it is the right thing
or:
Someone who does the right thing because they fear god is going to fuck over them if they do not do the right thing?


Again, for me, personally, I am not interested in trying to convince anyone to be atheist. If people need religion in their lives in order to do the right thing, then so be it. In fact, if that is the only thing keeping them in line, I'm happier if they do believe. But if they are free to have their belief system, then I want to be free to have mine. I want to be left alone, and I don't want political policies dominated by one religious group.

I don't know that we even need to answer the "is it more ethical" as long as there can be true peaceful co-existence. And again, this is where the difficulty arises....



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875