Maybe controversial - Religion IS bad, but.....

[The Grand Nudger]

I was a foolish Catholic when I was young. The priest did take the parish's money to buy a car.
Don't know what the higher ups are buying. 

LOL, yes you do, and you know it isn't cars.

[Sandman]

Argh. How do I do the quotes?  Where's the help desk? Getting so tired.


Warning. I didn't figure out quote boxes yet. If you don't want to read this, well....


No body ever accused me of being a genius.


@Thumpalumpacus


You said: "How childish are you are that you confuse disagreement with not reading?"

Administrator Notice
Wall o'text incoming.

---

The guy I was talking to in that quote claimed I said something like - Athiests don't do charity.

Pretty sure my previous posts admitted Atheists do charity.  At least, I never said they didn't. So I claimed he didn't read them.


Um which previous post was I referring to... 


Maybe some of the post I tried to put up didn't stick? I put up some replies that I'm not seeing when I look back.

Not sure why it might not have worked, or where the posts might be.

This is the first time I've used a forum in a long time. When I last used a forum I barely used it.

Was not expecting a big discussion. Thought I would ease into things.


You said: "Selfish Atheists"


You say I made some selfish atheist trope? Where? Saying atheists could do better at charity does not necessarily imply selfishness.

There are plenty of reasons for not doing charity.


You said: "Here's an example of AI making a video presentation on the B-29 bomber of WWII era. It'll be plain why I don't trust or use AI:"


Sorry, I reviewed the video 5 times. I heard it flub a word once.

I'm pretty tired, so maybe that is why I didn't catch what was supposed to be obvious. I've heard AI can sometimes have trouble making a video.

The video seems like something made on a PC. Not a Google flagship AI, which doesn't do video. All I can say is Google AI has worked for me,

The only issue I've had:

In some instances it pulled info that was related to my question, but not exactly. I had to try again with a rephrased question to get the specific info.



You can Google "internet hypertext links to documents on" followed by a subject of interest to pull a list of documents on the subject from google AI.
No summary needed. You said you were interested in docs, I think. Maybe you don't trust AI to do even that. I don't know.


I guess I can get you info. you want after I've rested.

---

You said: "Finally, would you please learn how to use the quote function?"



Trying. How? So Tired....

[Sandman]

@Mister Agenda


I said: "For what its worth, kinda wish Atheists did charity better than them."

You said: "You mean take credit for how much atheists do in donations and volunteering? That IS hard to track, since it's really the only reason to have a specifically atheist charity."

Administrator Notice
Wall o'text again.

---

Interesting. There are surveys tracking personal volunteer time of religious vs non. Same for personal $ charitable donations. We also have data on numbers and characteristics of
charitable organizations including trusts etc. I don't see see how Atheist organizations are 'needed' to track athiest personal charity.


You said "I think purely religious giving should be subtracted from that. If I pay dues to belong to a social club, that's not charity and that's what a lot of going to church is, IMHO."

ah definitions - gotta make em agree. So by your definition, when secular social clubs use their members money & time for charitable causes, it's not really charity either. Because its a social club.

Well, I hear the churches in America gave, say, 3% of this year's $135.78 billion dollar member 'dues' to charity. Would you please, as best as you can, off the top of your head, provide me the total dues collected by all social clubs in America this year, and the percentage of their 'dues' which went to 'charity'. I understnad there are no good numbers for volunteer time given to churches alone, so we can throw out volunteer time numbers on churches and secular social clubs.

This way we can reasonably include or exclude social clubs along with churches in our religious vs. non religious charity calculations.


You said: "Sorry you were on rough times"


Thank you. It was rough. I've got no sentimental, or uplifting things to say about it - only that, I guess I can say I'm better than ever. Tired...


You said: "Approximately 81% of Americans believe in God, so 63% of food banks being religious doesn't seem like a high proportion to me, given that."


Ugh. I hear from one Atheist that religion dominates America, and from another, that religion has declined, and nobody goes to church any more.

Seems to depend on which position and on which subject of a discussion the Atheist involves himself in.

Since I'm not sure how many of your 81% actually are involved in churches, which are the sponsors of food banks, I'll say:

According to "The Conversation" an online news site: (Wish I could give the link)

Half of all U.S. churches are involved in food distribution, either directly or through partnerships with other organizations.

I understand churches typically allocate a portion of their budget to "ministries and outreach" or "missions".
This can range from 10% to 15%, or even 10% to 30%, depending on the church's size and mission.
Also, some churches may set aside a percentage for benevolence ministries, including food assistance.
These 'budget items', may be allocated alone or together for the purposes of operating a food bank.
At least that is what I hear.

Churches also support, soup kitchens, community meals, mobile food pantries, senior meal programs,
emergency food assistance, partnerships with larger food organizations, and community gardens.
You said: "Could it be much of the difference in charitable giving can be accounted for by numbers and counting the churches themselves as objects of charity."

Yeah, charitable surveys do include churches as charities.
My best understanding is that church operating expenses are around 67% to 97% of donations. With the rest of the donation money going to charity.

It averages 25% overhead for all other charities, religious and secular. Meaning - you get a lower 'charitable' 'return on investment' with a church.

Not entirely sure about the numbers, but if you do not count the church overhead, as money given to charity, and you do count
the overhead in other charities, religious or secular, as money given to charities, then:

Religious and Non religious charity donations apppear to come out even. A wash, as far as I can tell.


You said: "A recent BBC study found that over 51% of AI-generated news summaries contained significant errors, highlighting the need for human oversight"


Errors generated by the AI? Or were they errors in the news stories that got summarized by the AI? Garbage in Garbage out, as they say.

I have trouble finding any news story reliabe. The news outlets, now adays, are propaganda spreaders heavily biased by politics. I can imagine the

disaster that would follow if an AI tried to combine for summary, left leaning and right leaning news stories.

I don't use AI for news. Nore do I use PC based AI programs, I think they have problems too. I have no use for image and video generating AI.

---

Finally,

I apologize for not using quote boxes. Having trouble figuring it out. Really, very tired.


Think I'll get some rest.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you intentionally do bad math, it comes out even - priceless.

[Paleophyte]

Argh. How do I do the quotes?  Where's the help desk? Getting so tired.

Under the main body of the message there's a button labeled "Reply". Hit that and don't screw with the code. So very simple.

If you must screw with the code, it looks a bit like this:

Code:

[quote='Paleophyte' pid='2236016' dateline='1750796485']Awesome! I'm quoting myself![/quote]

You can simplify the code by removing the attribution, but you lose the ability to hotlink the messages (That's the little green arrow after "Sandman Wrote:" in this message. Click it and you get teleported back to the message that I'm quoting.):

Code:

[quote]Awesome! I'm quoting myself![/quote]

If you're going to screw with the code I suggest that you go learn a litle BBCode first.

[Paleophyte]

Oh, and in the editor there's a "Preview Post" button. It's really handy for seeing just how badly you've buggered things up while screwing with the code. It's useful for fixing errors before you make them public. If you're missing posts that you're sure that you made then it's possible that you're closing that window rather than hitting "Post Reply". If you do that then you're writing replies but never actually posting them.

[Paleophyte]

You said: "Here's an example of AI making a video presentation on the B-29 bomber of WWII era. It'll be plain why I don't trust or use AI:"


Sorry, I reviewed the video 5 times. I heard it flub a word once.

I'm pretty tired, so maybe that is why I didn't catch what was supposed to be obvious. I've heard AI can sometimes have trouble making a video.

I don't know a lot about aviation, but if you look at the thumbnail you'll note that the tail is on the front. I'm pretty sure that's not right. And you get the occasional propeller put together like a drunken daffodil. If you skip to the 2:50 mark of the video you'll find the video that the thumbnail is drawn from and the narrative at that instant is pretty damned hilarious.

Perhaps you'll prefer these fine specimens:

[Thumpalumpacus]

You said: "Selfish Atheists"

Right, because that's a pretty widespread trope.

You say I made some selfish atheist trope? Where? Saying atheists could do better at charity does not necessarily imply selfishness.

You didn't write the words "selfish atheist", but you certainly appealed to that in your unsupported claim. That is the essence of "trope" -- appealing to a commonly-held though perhaps wrong idea.

You said: "Here's an example of AI making a video presentation on the B-29 bomber of WWII era. It'll be plain why I don't trust or use AI:

Sorry, I reviewed the video 5 times. I heard it flub a word once.

Great. Now go google a plain picture of a B-29, and see where your prized AI has screwed up. Or maybe just look at the images in the video. Do propellers come out of engine nacelles? Do the engines on a B-29 have three or four propellers? Do some have three and some have four? Does the B-29 have a stepped cockpit?

You see, when you don't know the details of the task you're assigning to AI, you cannot know when that AI gets it wrong. You're strapped into its errors.

In an effort to try and help you out, I will provide this video, entirely produced by a human, about the B-29.

I'm pretty tired, so maybe that is why I didn't catch what was supposed to be obvious. I've heard AI can sometimes have trouble making a video.

Or you might simply acknowledge that AI makes mistakes and trusting it is not smart.

I guess I can get you info. you want after I've rested.

Just type the name of the website. How tiresome is that? You're acting like I'm asking you to go down to the archives and mail me copies of the documents. I'm not. Just type the name of the website.

The more you complain, the more I doubt you have any source. Prove me wrong. Type the name of your source and I will do the rest of the god-awful trekking across the WWW wearing my fingers to the bone, since that's so much work for you.

You said: "Finally, would you please learn how to use the quote function?"

Trying. How? So Tired....

Now, I know this might sound complicated, but in the lower right-hand corner of every post, there's a button labeled -- wait for it, it's maybe hard to figure out -- it's labeled "reply". And you only have to click on that button and it will send you to a reply screen. One click ... even your tired hands should be able to manage that. Here, look at this:

[NegievProsnasol]

Administrator Notice
Post deleted, again.

[Sandman]

You said: "Selfish Atheists"

Right, because that's a pretty widespread trope.

You say I made some selfish atheist trope? Where? Saying atheists could do better at charity does not necessarily imply selfishness.

You didn't write the words "selfish atheist", but you certainly appealed to that in your unsupported claim. That is the essence of "trope" -- appealing to a commonly-held though perhaps wrong idea.

You said: "Here's an example of AI making a video presentation on the B-29 bomber of WWII era. It'll be plain why I don't trust or use AI:

Sorry, I reviewed the video 5 times. I heard it flub a word once.

Great. Now go google a plain picture of a B-29, and see where your prized AI has screwed up. Or maybe just look at the images in the video. Do propellers come out of engine nacelles? Do the engines on a B-29 have three or four propellers? Do some have three and some have four? Does the B-29 have a stepped cockpit?

You see, when you don't know the details of the task you're assigning to AI, you cannot know when that AI gets it wrong. You're strapped into its errors.

In an effort to try and help you out, I will provide this video, entirely produced by a human, about the B-29.

I'm pretty tired, so maybe that is why I didn't catch what was supposed to be obvious. I've heard AI can sometimes have trouble making a video.

Or you might simply acknowledge that AI makes mistakes and trusting it is not smart.

I guess I can get you info. you want after I've rested.

Just type the name of the website. How tiresome is that? You're acting like I'm asking you to go down to the archives and mail me copies of the documents. I'm not. Just type the name of the website.

First, you say "selfish atheist" is a commonly held, idea/trope that is maybe wrong. So my claim is, what? Prejudiced or invalid? Not worth listening to? I've listened to plenty of people, address atheism, argue it. Maybe once or twice have I heard the 'selfish atheist' term said and I'm not even sure about that. You say I have an unsupported Atheism claim. Please do support your claim that 'selfish atheist' is a commonly held idea. Considering your high standards for evidence, I expect I will be impressed and enlightened.

Btw, the above response is me supporting my claim.

Regarding AI:

1. A limited number of minor, technical errors in a video or document, does not automatically invalidate the entirety of it.
    Human made documents can contain typos that do not invalidate the document. The video does not demonstrate your otherwise valid point.
2. You only use human made evidence? Do I need to delve into the problems of human error?
3. It's true that the way an AI comes to it's results is obscure, and problematic. There are ways to check its results.
    When asked, the AI I use provides links to human sources, which you prize, to support it's results.
    I use the links, though not always. Certainly should use them more.


My statements, which you asked evidence for:


1) According to a 2022 Survey 63 percent of all food banks were religious.

The website is BMC Public Health.

The research report is titled "A descriptive analysis of food pantries in twelve American states: hours of operation, faith-based affiliation, and location"


2) Additionally, in the states surveyed, half of the religious congregations gave time and money to both christian and secular food banks.


Okay, I followed the AI generated link and got an article:

The website is: The Conversation

The Article is: "Nearly half of all churches and other faith institutions help people get enough to eat"
        The research this article references is behind multiple paywalls.

If I had followed this link, I would have not made statement 2. so I definitely got that wrong. My bad. I should have followed the link first. Even so,


The AI also provided examples like the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank. A search of that site reveals multiple churches that support the organization.