Mclean's - Do atheists care less?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

So when you say "I'd have to say that the most charitable people tend to be religious," what exactly do you mean then?

"In my own considerable experience, I'd have to say that the most charitable people tend to be people who participate in organized religion"?

To be overly pedantic, those with an honest belief in the relavatory power of a higher power seem to be more charitable than those interested in purely secular pursuits or the service of an entrenched institution, like a church or bureaucracy.

[photon]

I don't think that's pedantic at all, it's a good distinction (though not sure how that meshes with what Doctordestiny had in mind).

Though I would tend to use the words in an opposite way, where religious refers to people who simply participate in an organization but believer refers to someone who believes in revelation from a higher power; "religious" was used as a pejorative in the churches I attended.

But the charts referred to don't speak at all to that (not that they have to since anecdotal evidence is sufficient to establish the validity of a claim...).

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by worth

It always boggles my mind how many athiests are just as fanatical about their position as religious people are.

This

I don't understand how devout atheists can criticize people who are devout in their religion, neither side can be proven or dis-proven

They are basically two sides of the same coin

[Finny61]

Originally Posted by photon

You contradicted yourself, you say it isn't true, but then you say "perhaps in some of the crummy churches you've been to", so which is it?

It is in fact true. If you actually read what I write...



No where did I say in every single church, and no where did I say any church actually singles you out, I said "if it is known". Just like any other social group there's things that result in higher social standing and things that result in lower social standing.

In every single evangelical church I've been to in 30+ years tithing was a requirement to be involved in ministry. If you weren't tithing the pastor would usually talk to you encouraging you to, and people that were having financial problems the first thing they were encouraged to do was tithe.



Semantics and irrelevant to the point. The point is that a much larger portion of people self identify as adhering to some kind of belief in God and participating in an organized religion to one degree or another, and unless peter12 is using the same difference in definition between religious and believers that you are and has taken that into account in his informal analysis I don't see how that's relevant.

I have not contradicted myself, you made a generalization that you hold a lower class amongst the church organization if you do not tithe. You base it on majority, I however disagree, it is in the minority and apparently the ones you have attended. In my 30+ years, tithing was never an issue brought in such manner. A sermon is different from a pastor or leader putting you aside and pressuring you into making donations happen.

[Thor]

Interesting, albeit silly article.

2 of the biggest philanthropists in the world are atheist, in Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.

Now however saying that this argument is kinda silly, a non belief or belief doesn't have a strong case either way that one is more likely to be charitable. Even though there are more scientific findings that show altruism and being good to others is an evolutionary idea for groups to succeed and prosper.

The fact is religions have organized structures and have well over a 1000 years to develop and work with charity.

Atheists are unorganized, they are not a religion; they are simply checking the box 'No' under do you believe in God.

Obviously one will be more successful at it than the other, its silly to suggest something about atheism makes you less likely to donate, volunteer, etc..

I will say though I'm all for any charity and organization that upholds secular values when doing their work, such as doctors without borders, red cross, etc.. I'd weary of religious groups who go to desperate areas with much needed help, but while a helping hand in one hand; a bible or any other holy book in the other.

Silly article, playing on the anger of both sides of a heated debate arguing who is more moralistic and that nonsense.

[stuck_in_chuk]

Originally Posted by worth

It always boggles my mind how many athiests are just as fanatical about their position as religious people are.

Incorrect. I can't speak for all atheists, but IF a god were to prove his existence (or even give compelling evidence), I would renounce atheism. Most other atheists would agree with that. Many Christians, however, refuse to accept evidence of a scientific nature that conflicts with their religious beliefs.

Not the same thing.

[sa226]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Enlighten everyone with your words sa226. We'd love to have your wisdom.

Oh please.

I realize I may have sounded a little "high and mighty" and thats obviously all that you picked up on, but thats not the point.

I like a good religion debate as much as the next person. But when you claim that the Vatican supported the Holocaust, that religion is the most stupid and murderous organization in history and also compare Jesus to Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.....then whats the point?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by stuck_in_chuk

Incorrect. I can't speak for all atheists, but IF a god were to prove his existence (or even give compelling evidence), I would renounce atheism. Most other atheists would agree with that. Many Christians, however, refuse to accept evidence of a scientific nature that conflicts with their religious beliefs.

Not the same thing.

I'd be pretty disappointed if the Supreme Diety of the Universe had to stoop to reveal its presence to a bunch of humans. Kind of pointless, eh?

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by stuck_in_chuk

Incorrect. I can't speak for all atheists, but IF a god were to prove his existence (or even give compelling evidence), I would renounce atheism. Most other atheists would agree with that. Many Christians, however, refuse to accept evidence of a scientific nature that conflicts with their religious beliefs.

Not the same thing.

no one can't prove a god doesn't exist though

you can prove there are inaccuracies in religious texts, but you can't scientifically prove that there is no higher power

[Thor]

Originally Posted by peter12

I'd be pretty disappointed if the Supreme Diety of the Universe had to stoop to reveal its presence to a bunch of humans. Kind of pointless, eh?

Hmm really why wouldn't he?

[stuck_in_chuk]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

This

I don't understand how devout atheists can criticize people who are devout in their religion, neither side can be proven or dis-proven

They are basically two sides of the same coin

NOT this, actually.

The atheist viewpoint can be disproven. If a god were to prove him/herself (which should be trivially easy for an all-powerful deity), then that would disprove the atheist side. The fact that he (or she) hasn't is evidence that he/she doesn't exist.

I acknowledge that you can't prove that a god doesn't exist. Just like you can't prove that Santa Claus and the Easter bunny don't exist.

[stuck_in_chuk]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

no one can't prove a god doesn't exist though

you can prove there are inaccuracies in religious texts, but you can't scientifically prove that there is no higher power

Exactly. That isn't evidence that god exists, though. You also can't prove that Thor, or Odin, or Zeus, or countless other mythical deities don't exist.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Finny61

I have not contradicted myself, you made a generalization that you hold a lower class amongst the church organization if you do not tithe.

I did not make a generalization, I said in many churches this happens, which is true. I didn't say in every church.

And I also didn't say you hold a lower class, I said it will negatively affect the social status.

If you are going to disagree with me, disagree with what I actually say.

Originally Posted by Finny61

You base it on majority, I however disagree, it is in the minority and apparently the ones you have attended. In my 30+ years, tithing was never an issue brought in such manner. A sermon is different from a pastor or leader putting you aside and pressuring you into making donations happen.

I didn't base it on any majority, I said it happens. Almost EVERY viewpoint or point of doctrine or aspect of the liturgy or any facet of a church is going to be in the minority with respect to the entire grouping of churches that are called Christianity. There's 30,000+ denominations, each one arouse out of some kind of difference. Of course you'll see more of this kind of belief in one kind of denomination vs others. Some denominations even teach tithing is of the Law and should NOT be adhered to.

And it's not a matter of pressure or putting aside, it's a matter of right standing with God. If someone is in active and willful disobedience to God then isn't that the job of the pastor to address? If a sheep is straying then isn't it the pastor's job to exhort that sheep back into a right relationship? And isn't it the job of the pastor and the church's leadership to ensure that people who hold those positions of leadership are in right standing with God? Otherwise there's no anointing.

So if a pastor doesn't try to guide his sheep and ensure that the people in leadership aren't actively disobeying God, then the pastor isn't a very good one.

[Charcot]

Some interesting discussion. I guess my point in starting this thread is not whether god exists or not. Clearly I don't believe it does. However that does not mean that some benefit does not come to those that believe in god, or in reference to the initial article, as a result of organized religion.

The particular example given is charity. I acknowledge there are all kinds of potential confounds. For example are people more likely to give to charity when they are elderly. Elderly people are more likely to be church going. And thus church going people may be more likely to give to charity but because they tend to be elderly and not church going. Are there other concrete examples of benefits that accrue from organized religion?

I think over the last year there have been enough threads documenting the problems that religion poses. I'd be interested in discussion around what might be some of the good things.

[photon]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

no one can't prove a god doesn't exist though

you can prove there are inaccuracies in religious texts, but you can't scientifically prove that there is no higher power

It kind of depends on how you define "higher power". The more fuzzy and deistic of a definition you use for god the harder it becomes yes. The more specific you get though the easier it becomes. If a specific claim about god is made, and it can be demonstrated that that claim is false, then you can say that that particular god (or god by that particular definition) does not exist with more confidence than you could say that about a completely undefined "higher power".

That's why many atheists will have a different level of confidence of their atheism depending on what god is being talked about.

Plus there's the difference between "I believe there's no god" and "I do not believe there is a god".

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

I don't understand how devout atheists can criticize people who are devout in their religion, neither side can be proven or dis-proven

Doesn't that make devout believers agnostics as well, since their side can't be proven and therefore isn't based on knowledge?

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Claeren

The same thing that leads them to think God is a social construct leads them to believe that most charities are a joke and most of the money goes into the pockets of the people running the charity.

Everyone is different so you really can't paint all atheists with the same brush. I'm an atheist and I don't think that most charities are a joke.

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by stuck_in_chuk

Exactly. That isn't evidence that god exists, though. You also can't prove that Thor, or Odin, or Zeus, or countless other mythical deities don't exist.

thats my point

so why be an atheist instead of an agnostic

an atheist is explicitly saying there is no god, which is the same as a religious person saying there is a god

[Da_Chief]

Guns don't kill people! people kill people.

Similarly, translation of each verse can have many different versions. Its how people use them. Religion doesn't tell you to kill, its people and how want to increase their own power and all the political bull$hit they use religion for.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Charcot

Some interesting discussion. I guess my point in starting this thread is not whether god exists or not. Clearly I don't believe it does. However that does not mean that some benefit does not come to those that believe in god, or in reference to the initial article, as a result of organized religion.

The particular example given is charity. I acknowledge there are all kinds of potential confounds. For example are people more likely to give to charity when they are elderly. Elderly people are more likely to be church going. And thus church going people may be more likely to give to charity but because they tend to be elderly and not church going. Are there other concrete examples of benefits that accrue from organized religion?

I think that's a great point and really illustrates why the article you posted really doesn't have much merit. Things are complicated, and to try and isolate one thing (how generous a group is) from one factor (belief) is very difficult.

And for that reason it's hard to directly attribute something to organized religion, since there's really no society completely devoid of organized religion to compare to.

Do less theistic societies like Japan or Nordic countries suffer from lack of charitable donations?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by peter12

I'd be pretty disappointed if the Supreme Diety of the Universe had to stoop to reveal its presence to a bunch of humans. Kind of pointless, eh?

I agree. But that does wipe out the entire premise of any religion I can think of.