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

[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]