How to tell if a religion is B.S.

[Anomalocaris]

Why would secular charity not accept £100?

I have yet to see any religious charity that does not leverage the donation directly or indirectly to proselytize.      If £100 helps them get a pass on spreading bullshit even if all of that particular £100 is transferred to the children, then I will still have to weigh the acute needs of the children against longer term harm to humanity.

When a hypothetical is presented, the respondent isn't permitted to add provisos of his/her own.

So, your position is that it would be better to give £10 to feed hungry children than £100?

Boru

You real question is does the actual charitable benefit of giving to a religious charity outweigh the harm of any proselytizing effect the religion extracts from running the charity.

The answer is it depends.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Thank you.  I was getting tired of biting my lip.

So, then, Buddhism is cool.  Sorry, no.

---

Hypothetical:  You have two options only:  You can give £10 to a secular charity for hungry children, or £100 to a religious charity for hungry children.  In both cases, you are given iron-clad assurance that 100% of your donation will go to the kids.

Which do you do?

Boru

Neither.  I go to the nearest pub to think it over.  By the time I'm done, the problem has resolved itself.

Far be it from me to say ANY thing against going to the pub, but that's not one of the options presented.

Funny, though - you're one of the last people here I expected to dodge the question.

Boru

---

When a hypothetical is presented, the respondent isn't permitted to add provisos of his/her own.

So, your position is that it would be better to give £10 to feed hungry children than £100?

Boru

You real question is does the actual charitable benefit of giving to a religious charity outweigh the harm of any proselytizing effect the religion extracts from running the charity.

The answer is it depends.

No, my real question is, 'Does the fact that a charitable institution is operated by a religious organization prevent you from donating?.

Boru

[Minimalist]

So you would give the 10 quid to the secular charity?

Boru

Of course.  I couldn't be sure the other $90 wouldn't go to paying off lawyers defending pervert priests.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

How do you know that 90% of your secular donation wouldn’t be wasted as well?

Boru

[Minimalist]

I find atheists trustworthy as opposed to religitards.

[Anomalocaris]

How do you know that 90% of your secular donation wouldn’t be wasted as well?

Boru

When secular charity waste 90% of donation, the waste likely went to a less evil cause than furtherance of religion and enrichment of religious hucksters.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

How do you know that 90% of your secular donation wouldn’t be wasted as well?

Boru

When secular charity waste 90% of donation, the waste likely went to a less evil cause than furtherance of religion and enrichment of religious hucksters.

You can’t possibly know that. Not really relevant, though.

Boru

---

I find atheists trustworthy as opposed to religitards.

But under the conditions of the hypothetical, neither group would use the money inappropriately.

Boru

[Gwaithmir]

I began to suspect that Catholicism was bullshit when I was introduced to The Index of Forbidden Books. It was also stated in the Catholic catechisms that students were forbidden to read any literature that might cause them to doubt their faith. As far as I was concerned, any ideas which must be shielded from rational scrutiny are, in all probability, bogus.

[tackattack]

So to sum it up Min,

You'd rather be cheated out of money by people who would steal from you for their own selfish gains than be cheated out of money by a religious organization because the money could potentially be used to further/protect injustices you see in organized religion?

[Anomalocaris]

So to sum it up Min,

You'd rather be cheated out of money by people who would steal from you for their own selfish gains than be cheated out of money by a religious organization because the money could potentially be used to further/protect injustices you see in organized religion?

If your money is going to be stolen, it is better if the thief is a small time crook than a murderous drug cartel.

If the religious charity is genuinely interested in helping others (good) and not in using others to help proselytize and grandiose itself (evil), then there is no need to tie its efforts to its own name and sumbologies now, Is there? It would not need to make itself a religious charity rather than a secular charity that so happened to be operated by a religious organization, would it now? In fact given the ill fame religion has acquire, a genuinely good intentioned religious charity would be able to maximize its charitable work by not revealing its religious affiliation to others, would it now?

so

---

When secular charity waste 90% of donation, the waste likely went to a less evil cause than furtherance of religion and enrichment of religious hucksters.

You can’t possibly know that. Not really relevant, though.

In the absence of precise information, you have to play the assessed overall odds.  It would be idiotic to say that because you don’t know whether a particular secular organization is worse than a particular religious organization, therefore you should behave as if the any religious organization is no more likely to be worse than any secular organization.