quote:

The study's authors, who surveyed 1,300 Americans, suggested that non-believers may be driven by emotions like compassion, whereas religious people may be motivated by "doctrine, a communal identity or reputational concerns." Chances are atheists will find the study's conclusions easy to believe, while believers will doubt them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: littlewonder

We don't have a conversion process. You are free to come and go as you please. And when they root a church there are people already in that area...the ones who invited us, who are needing help in building up their church and through word of mouth, others inviting others, etc....who come to the church. No one goes out and hands out pamphlets, no one knocks on your door and no one tells you you're going to hell. All the church asks is that if you wish to be closer to god that you live an intentional life meaning you make a choice every single day to be one with God and his choices for you. If you don't that's fine too. Your choice.

And like I said, it's not just christianity that does it. Others religions do also.

quote:

ORIGINAL: littlewonder

I am christian but like I said there are many religions that do the same thing and we don't have to convert them. What is there to convert them to? They either want to live an intentional life or they don't. No one can force you to do anything. You make a choice yourself...you, no one else. We don't invite them....they invite us and then they bring friends along who are interested or family or they see the church while driving by and want to learn more about it or they run across the website....kinda like ya know...bdsm groups and forums, etc....It ain't no different lol.

So I guess you could say bdsm groups proselytize and convert as well lol.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

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?

Fwiw, I've spent my life in and around churches (Catholic, Episcopal, Unitarian), and I've never heard fear of divine retribution cited as a reason for moral behavior.

Ymmv, I realize.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hlen5

I've only read the first 7 posts, but could it be that modesty might prevent the believers from enumerating each charitable act?

quote:

ORIGINAL: littlewonder

I can't control what others did or do so I don't really concern myself about it. When I talk I talk about me and those around me and our community and people and experiences.

My ancestors did lots of things. Does that mean I'm now responsible for all their bad deeds? If so then you may as well shoot me now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

They are right, believers doubt the conclusion. With good reason. First, 1300 is a small sample, Too small.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

They are right, believers doubt the conclusion. With good reason. First, 1300 is a small sample, Too small.

Prove mathematically that a sample of 1300 respondents is too small.

The rest of your post is self-serving horseshit.

quote:

So what is a small enough sample that we can predict how many Louisvillians like vanilla ice cream? Half a million? No. How about 100,000? No, smaller. Maybe 10,000? Nope.
Surprisingly enough, for a population of about one million people, we would only need to survey 384 people to get a reliable answer. There are specific factors we have to consider regarding who to pick, making sure all pockets of the population are included, and the quality of the research basis, but if we can satisfy all those factors, we only have to talk to 384 people total.
And if 80% of those 384 people said vanilla’s the way to go, we would have a margin of error of 5% and we could be confident that 75% to 85% of the entire one million people in Louisville said vanilla was their favorite flavor. (We discussed margin of error in a previous post.)
What’s fascinating is if we wanted to widen our population count to, say 100 million people, you might think we have to ask 38,400 people. Not so. If you wanted to find out how many people out of 100 million would vote for vanilla, you only need to survey 385 people. It is still a statistically valid sample with just 385 people, and still able to gauge the ice cream preferences of one-third of the United States.
After you hit the 10,000 mark in your population, the number needed to survey goes up very slowly.
The world of surveys and statistics is fascinating to say the least, and there’s a lot to understand, but making sure your numbers are on par and statistically valid, is one essential element that makes research the amazing tool for business it can be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: littlewonder

they don't show up uninvited. They're invited by either the community or a pastor looking to build his own church.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

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.

I hardly believe they tossed an underage daughter out on the street. That would be illegal for one. So, if she was of age then I would suggest it was not just because she was gay but even if it was "my roof, my rules" applies here and this does not in any manner support your comment on "those kinds of churches" unless there is something else we should know that would substantiate such a view of churches.

Well wishes,
Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

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."

Why do you say so?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas
They are right, believers doubt the conclusion. With good reason. First, 1300 is a small sample, Too small.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: hlen5

I've only read the first 7 posts, but could it be that modesty might prevent the believers from enumerating each charitable act?

That has never been my experience with christians. One might consider any number of tv preachers and their line of rhetoric

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

...the study is flawed in having too small a sample

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

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?!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Would it be fair to say that murdering people isn't a compassionate thing to do?

quote:

ORIGINAL: hlen5

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: hlen5

I've only read the first 7 posts, but could it be that modesty might prevent the believers from enumerating each charitable act?

That has never been my experience with christians. One might consider any number of tv preachers and their line of rhetoric

Then how unfortunate for you. I don't consider tv preachers much at all.

I can only speak about those who self identify as christians.
Or:
Perhaps I don't get out enough.

(in reply to hlen5)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

Would this be a good time to mention Gregory S. Paul's research into social health and cohesion related to levels of religiosity in various countries? This drew from a number of studies and found, amongst other things, that religious societies were more murderous.

Would it be fair to say that murdering people isn't a compassionate thing to do?