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

[The Grand Nudger]

Anyway, the topic of these posts was "I kinda wish atheists did charity better than them" not, "I wish secularists did charity better."

More when I can.

-and when they do you'll decide that's not the "better" you meant.  Boring.

[Mister Agenda]

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


Think I'll get some rest.

I had trouble with it to at first, but you'll get the hang of it.

[Mister Agenda]

@Mister Agenda
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.

No, the portion that goes to charitable causes counts as charity, the portion that goes to the organization itself should not.

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.

No.

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.

The percentage of people who believe in God and the percentage who go to church are not the same. The percentage of Americans who regularly attend church is about 30%.

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

That's my impression as well.

[The Grand Nudger]

You've got the revanchist institutions driving away anyone with a shred of empathy or a functioning brain, failing to capture the youth, and subsequently collecting less money while spending more and more on "administration". Meanwhile, people aren't in the best position to give in the first place. Thus, federal anti hunger programs end up delivering something like ten times as much nutrition as all churches and charities combined.

-but don't worry, the super trumpy regular church going demo is gonna gut that too.....because they're just so good at giving....

[Sandman]

Thumpalumpacus:

I asked you first to support your positive claim. It is unsupported because you haven't linked to reputable sources showing that atheists in fact donate less.

No, no. You didn't ask me to support it, you just stated that I had an unsupported claim. Are you talking about  another post?

That claim was "I kinda wish Atheists did charity better than them" not "atheists donate less."
In fact my position on donations is:

While I don't have all the information, I seems like Atheists donate about as much as christians, on most causes.

Please ask questions for clarification. Plus, its hard to answer your
points when they don't reflect what I'm saying.

So, you want evidence. This sort of thing leads me to my position on donations:

Sage Journals: "Giving to Secular Causes
by the Religious and Nonreligious:
An Experimental Test of the
Responsiveness of Giving to Subsidies"

Also, in this experiment, I do wish the non-believers did better at the charity, I might believe they did so in real life.

There. Please support your claim that 'selfish atheist' is a commonly held idea.

Thumpalumpacus:

As for my writing that "selfish atheist" is a trope, well, perhaps you should read a little. Maybe talk to some of the Christians in your life. Maybe go on Christian forums where much back-patting happens. I don't think there's any scientific study on the matter, if that is what you're asking for, but I also don't see you providing anything other than your own anecdotal experience, in which case you really ought not ask me to satisfy evidentiary standards you cannot meet yourself.

Go out and investigate your claim myself? LOL. Wait, I didn't meet your evidenciary standards so you don't want to meet your own standards? LOL
Well I tried again to provide more evidence for you.

Thumpalumpacus:

Not so, sirrah -- repeating a claim is no giving evidence for it.

What are you reading? I see no repeated claim at the top of this post. I don't want to repeat claims.

Thumpalumpacus:

It's funny that you mention "human error". You see, when you ask AI a question, it searches human input and collates it without regard for sourcing or citation which supports it. This is why you get airplanes with propellers coming out of engine nacelles rather than off the spinner, which any human would recognize as wrong.

Now, rather than obvious photographical errors such as above, now try to correct written errors which may or may not be obvious to the reader.

In the fields I care about and study, I know who is trustworthy and who isn't. I've also read enough that when some human gets something wrong in those fields, I can raise a question-mark. The problem with your approach is that while your AI analyses may provide source-citations, you yourself have no way of knowing how the AI has analyzed the information, what data-points it has weighted, and whether or not it has cross-checked itself.

    True, Google AI uses 'un-scientific' docs.
    It may pull from industry reports, literature from historians, case studies, and more.
    1)  The AI is selective in its sourcing. It uses various tests and techniques to select its data.
    2)  I have read the public info. on how Google AI analyzes information, and how it weighs data-points.
    3)  It has a very sophisticated system for self-checking, but needs a human in some cases.
    4)  Not all facts are to be found in scientific documents. There are other sources to be found.

    Rather than a scientifically collated document, I consider AI results as an overview.
    You begin your research from your personal understanding, not a collated scientific document.
    I begin from a personal understanding, and at times, an overview, which does need to be verified.
    
    You seem to acknowledge that, if conscientious and careful, I might deal with known error sources.
    (Not that I have been entirely doing that lately.)
    It appears you are more concerned about unknown sources. Google is up front in describing all AI
    error sources, and how to deal with them. It would mention any significant  'unknown errors'.
    Perhaps the better question is whether or not I check my sources and deal with the known errors effectively.
    I suppose it's your position that is impossible to do. 

Thumpalumpacus:

Oooh, 12 states out of, what is it now, fifty?

    Ah, I didn't say that it %63 in twelve states. I should have made that clear to everyone much sooner.
    Yep I looked right past that. Definitely fucked that one up.[/hide]

[arewethereyet]

I asked you first to support your positive claim. It is unsupported because you haven't linked to reputable sources showing that atheists in fact donate less.

As for my writing that "selfish atheist" is a trope, well, perhaps you should read a little. Maybe talk to some of the Christians in your life. Maybe go on Christian forums where much back-patting happens. I don't think there's any scientific study on the matter, if that is what you're asking for, but I also don't see you providing anything other than your own anecdotal experience, in which case you really ought not ask me to satisfy evidentiary standards you cannot meet yourself.


Not so, sirrah -- repeating a claim is no giving evidence for it.


It's funny that you mention "human error". You see, when you ask AI a question, it searches human input and collates it without regard for sourcing or citation which supports it. This is why you get airplanes with propellers coming out of engine nacelles rather than off the spinner, which any human would recognize as wrong.

Now, rather than obvious photographical errors such as above, now try to correct written errors which may or may not be obvious to the reader.

In the fields I care about and study, I know who is trustworthy and who isn't. I've also read enough that when some human gets something wrong in those fields, I can raise a question-mark. The problem with your approach is that while your AI analyses may provide source-citations, you yourself have no way of knowing how the AI has analyzed the information, what data-points it has weighted, and whether or not it has cross-checked itself.

And yes -- I only use human sources, and I am well aware of the possibility of error, which is why I cross-check. It's laborious, and AI is easy, but facts matter more to me than ease.



Oooh, 12 states out of, what is it now, fifty?



Let's see those proportions.



Yeah, that doesn't answer my points, or points raised by others.

Think for yourself, brotha. Seriously.

---

You said "I asked you..."

No, no. You didn't ask me to support it, you just stated that I had an unsupported claim.

That claim was "I kinda wish Atheists did charity better than them" not "atheists donate less."
In fact my position on donations is:

While I don't have all the information, I seems like Atheists donate about as much as christians, on most causes.

Please ask questions for clarification. I don't want words put in my mouth. Plus, its hard to answer your
points when they don't reflect what I'm saying.

So, you want evidence. This sort of thing leads me to my position on donations:

Sage Journals: "Giving to Secular Causes
by the Religious and Nonreligious:
An Experimental Test of the
Responsiveness of Giving to Subsidies"

Also, in this experiment, I do wish the non-believers did better at the charity, I might believe they did so in real life.

There. Kindly support your claim that 'selfish atheist' is a commonly held idea.

"Maybe talk to..."
Go out and investigate your claim myself? LOL.
And after complaining in a previous post that you weren't going to investigate my claims yourself...

"...no giving evidence for it."
    What are you reading? I see no repeated claim at the top of this post.


"...would recognize as wrong."
    True, Google AI uses 'un-scientific' docs.
    It may pull from industry reports, literature from historians, case studies, and more.
    1)  The AI is selective in its sourcing. It uses various tests and techniques to select its data.
    2)  I have read the public info. on how Google AI analyzes information, and how it weighs data-points.
    3)  It has a very sophisticated system for self-checking, but needs a human in some cases.
    4)  Not all facts are to be found in scientific documents. There are other sources to be found.

    Rather than a scientifically collated document, I consider AI results as an overview.
    You begin your research from your personal understanding, not a collated scientific document.
    I begin from a personal understanding, and at times, an overview, which does need to be verified.
    
    You seem to acknowledge that, if conscientious and careful, I might deal with known error sources.
    (Not that I have been entirely doing that lately.)
    It appears you are more concerned about unknown sources. Google is up front in describing all AI
    error sources, and how to deal with them. It would mention any significant  'unknown errors'.
    Perhaps the better question is whether or not I check my sources and deal with the known errors effectively.


Oooh, 12 states out of, what is it now, fifty?

    Ah, I didn't say that it %63 in twelve states. I should have made that clear to everyone much sooner.
    Yep I looked right past that. Definitely fucked that one up.

---

Administrator Notice
I will NOT let this go again.

From the rules page...read it.

Public Service Announcements

1. When replying to a large post, members should not quote the entire post in their response, as this tends to make threads difficult to read. Instead, members should split the quote up into smaller quotes to which their response is aimed, provided the meaning of the quote is not changed by removing it from context. Alternatively, hide tags can be used inside quotes to make the quote smaller whilst preserving the actual quote content:
   
   Code:
   
   
   

   ---

   Section of quote a member wants to hide.

   ---

   Section of quote a member wants to respond to.
2. [size=undefined]
   
   Posts which violate this will be edited to either remove the large quote or hide it.

[/size]

[Sandman]

What percentage of the population is religious?


What's the other half doing?


Wow. More than one church.

Ah, you asked something like this before. Glad to get to reply.

First, we are talking about churches that do food banks. Of course most of the many christians who do not go to church are not running food banks.
They support food banks, and other causes on their own. At least the percentage of those that do charity.
Additionally many rural churches are too small to host food banks, so they do other things.

Second, they have plenty of other charities to work on; housing for the poor, support for homeless shelters, drug rehabilitation, after-school programs and Tutoring,
home repair and maintenance for those in need, back to school supplies drives, and others. It may seem that with government programs, and all the work
secular charities do that there would be no need for church charity, but churches are finding need in their communities and beyond.

Third, the study I cited previously refers to churches generally supporting food banks. It does not specify secular or no.
For clarification, this is just added to demonstrate that churches do support secular food banks.

It was pointed out to me that I said:  "In a 2022 survey %63 percent of all Food Banks were funded by churches."
And what I really should have said is:  "In a 2022 survey of twelve states  %63 percent of all Food Banks were funded by churches."
It is bothering me that I got that wrong.
My responses above still apply, just for the twelve states, not all of America.

[Sandman]

Post deleted. Nothing to see here.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Thumpalumpacus:

I asked you first to support your positive claim. It is unsupported because you haven't linked to reputable sources showing that atheists in fact donate less.

No, no. You didn't ask me to support it, you just stated that I had an unsupported claim. Are you talking about  another post?

No. My pointing out that your claim is unsupported, I'm challenging you to support it. You have not demonstrated your point. I'm not obliged to accept your claim at face-value.

But hey, if you cannot, will not, or do not want to support it, that sounds like a you problem. So far as I see, you're saying about 63% of Americans support about 60% of charities, which doesn't pan out to a majority.

You're still trying to piggyback on a trope, and it's still transparent. Bring me some hard numbers. How many theists donate how many dollars vs how many atheists donate how many dollars. I want facts. Do you have them?

Solid numbers, boyo. Solid numbers.

Post deleted. Nothing to see here.

Yeah, accuracy in one of your posts.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Re the thread title: why would ‘religion is bad’ be controversial on an atheist forum?

Boru