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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

quote:

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

...they are looking at different things.

quote:

ORIGINAL: littlewonder

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

quote:

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

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".

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,

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.

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.

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."

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.

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."

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?