RE: Maybe controversial - Religion IS bad, but.....
June 24, 2025 at 8:32 pm
(This post was last modified: June 24, 2025 at 9:02 pm by arewethereyet.)
@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."
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.
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.
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.
