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

[Angrboda]

Believers are no more generous than atheists – at least as long as they don’t know what the recipient believes in. Finding this out increases generosity significantly, mainly because people give more to those who share their religion. This is the conclusion of a study carried out at Linköping University.

Religious people are not more generous – with one exception
(Study Link)

Of those white evangelical Protestants, we found that 60 percent believed that atheists would not allow them First Amendment rights and liberties. More specifically, we asked whether they believed atheists would prevent them from being able to “hold rallies, teach, speak freely, and run for public office.” Similarly, 58 percent believed “Democrats in Congress” would not allow them to exercise these liberties if they were in power. By contrast, 23 percent think “Republicans in Congress” would not respect their rights; those were primarily the views of a small contingent of white evangelical Democrats in the sample.

---

Then respondents were asked whether their selected group should be allowed to give speeches in the community, teach in public schools, run for public office and other liberties. Americans are not particularly tolerant of groups they dislike. Only 30 percent are willing to allow their disliked group three or more such activities.

But 65 percent of atheists and 53 percent of Democrats who listed Christian fundamentalists as their least-liked group are willing to allow them to engage in three or more of these activities. That’s a much higher proportion with tolerance than the sample overall.

---

However, we found that a smaller proportion of white evangelicals would behave with tolerance toward atheists than the proportion of atheists who would behave with tolerance toward them. Thirteen percent of white evangelical Protestants selected atheists as their least-liked group. Of those, 32 percent are willing to extend three or more of these rights to atheists. In fact, when we looked at all religious groups, atheists and agnostics were the most likely to extend rights to the groups they least liked.

White evangelicals fear atheists and Democrats would strip away their rights. Why?

A major demotivator for giving to charity is the presence of free riders. These are people who don’t contribute, but who benefit anyway. If you give to a heart research charity, then everyone benefits whether they contribute or not. If you give to a charity for the homeless, then unless you give an enormous sum your donation will be a vanishingly small portion of the total. So there is a temptation to be a free-rider yourself. The free-rider effect occurs because the utility of charitable giving (i.e. the benefit that accrues to the donor from giving, compared with the benefit that would accrue from keeping the money) is low.

---

For altruistic atheists, however,the free-rider effect is much more pertinent. One secular way to get around the free-rider effect is to make giving from rich to poor compulsory, rather than voluntary. In other words, they might prefer that wealth is redistributed via taxation and the welfare state, rather than by voluntary donations. For the religious, this would actually decrease utility because taxation would reduce their surplus cash and so reduce the potential for them to give to charity and reap supernatural rewards.

But is there any evidence that this is true? Well, if it was then you might expect that countries with a high proportion of atheists would have a larger welfare state. And indeed that is exactly what you see. Gill and Lundsgaarde have analysed a cross-section of countries, and found that those countries with more atheists also have higher state welfare spending.

Atheists are generous, they just don’t give to charity

Rebuttal to "Religious people give more to charity?"

I'm trying to make shore my argument for why I believe that religious people potentially giving more to charity isn't the winning talking point that religious people think it is. So far, here's what I've got, though I'd love some more info,

1. In studies that have showed that religious people give more, they've tended to include churches as charities. They've also tended to include groups like the Salvation Army, who I know are extremely discriminatory in who they are actually willing to help.
   
2. A recent Gallup poll found that Protestant Christians and Atheists gave to secular charities at nearly the exact same rate.
   
3. Even if we grant that religious people, on the whole, give more-they probably do so because of the community ties inherent to religion—not because of the religious tenants themselves. If you could replicate those ties in atheism, you could achieve the same effect.
   
4. One study found that atheists/secular folx give more compassionately when they do give. They're motivated more by actual compassion, rather than moral obligation.
   
5. Churches lose/abuse donations not infrequently.
   
6. In America, the whole reason that we have to lean so heavily on charity to begin with is because we've absolutely gutted the welfare state and any legitimate protection for the poor. It tends to be Republicans, who tend to be religious, who vote for policies that further gut said welfare state and make things harder for the poor. In other words, why should I thank them for fixing a problem they help cause?
   

(r/atheism)

[Belacqua]

Hey didn't say religion - or the government was good.

Still like America tho.

Lost my job for awhile. Forced to accept charity from a church/government food bank.

Didn't like it at all. No Atheists to help me out then.

You say their charities fail. But I got the food when I needed it.

Life's never perfect.

You said yourself they didn't have the cash etc. on their own so they went to the gov't.

The charity then worked for me so how can I consider them as failing?

Reality can be ugly, not what you want, when you are forced to swallow your pride.

I've been told that atheism is simply a lack of belief in God, and doesn't necessarily carry with it any ethical beliefs. So if atheists do charity, it will be because of some positive belief they have -- for example, the feeling that they have an ethical commitment to their community, or sympathy for people who are less well-off. 

Getting from the feeling of an ethical commitment to an efficient infrastructure for charity requires a few more steps. And none of these things is atheist per se, because people who lack belief may or may not feel charitable. It's not an integral consequence of having a lack. 

So depending on where you are, the best charity might be secular, but it won't be atheist. Oxfam is an example. In America it's not uncommon for atheists to participate in charities organized by religious people, simply because that's where the infrastructure is. 

(Where I live, in Japan, there is very little Christian proselytizing or debate about specific beliefs. All of the Christians I have known here joined the church because of its history of charitable work. Christians set up the first kindergartens, for example, and for a long time ran the only women's colleges. The image of "what Christians do" is fundamentally based on their charitable work.)

For quite a long time, European and American culture were rooted in Christianity, and our ethics still reflect that. Obviously many Christians have failed to live up to Christian ideals. (Because human beings often fail to live up to their ideals.) But if we're looking for secular institutions to take over for the work that religious institutions traditionally did, it's apparently going to take a while longer. 

Ronald Reagan, unfortunately, popularized the belief that government is always the problem, and that private organizations always do a better job. This is not always true, but it has become a common assumption among many people, including some Democrats. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when politicians underfund governmental agencies on the assumption that they won't do a good job even if they have sufficient funds. This means that many people start out with an ideological objection to secular government charities, and just assume that non-governmental groups will step in. So again, it's Christian groups which have traditionally done this. How much better they could have done it, in an ideal world, I don't know.

[arewethereyet]

For what its worth, kinda wish Atheists did charity better than them.

What makes you think that atheists don't donate to charities?

Churches tend to have a platform to gather people and they also advertise their help.  Atheists tend to be free-range though there are atheist groups out there, they aren't as visible as church affiliated groups.


Religious charities also sometimes use their "charity" as ways to reach people who are at their lowest to trade a bag of food for a Bible lesson.  

I'd like to know why you think atheists do not contribute to charitable causes.

[Sandman]

@Thumpalumpacus


Charitably lazy? I admitted seculars do plenty of charity if you read my posts. I say in my experience the christians did more. For example:


Quote: "You just seem uninformed because there are many secular charity organizations that help people and win Nobel prizes like UNICEF,

           Doctors without Borders, World Food Program, Humanists International, Save the Children, Children International, Oxfam, Amnesty

           International, Kiva, etc."

Quote: "True also, however still not convinced there are more of them."


Evidence? I'm new here. I can't post links.

But a quick google search shows:

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

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

Food banks don't have lots of employees in my experience, and with half the congregations responding. I'd say they're well represented.


Next, everything you said about what you did at the food bank can be said of the christian employees as well. Or is christians being as dumb as they are,
and with everything wrong with the church not enough? They are messed up. Still I don't think you want to say that the christians you worked with were
a bunch of evil, screwed up bastards. Must we add bias to the facts.


My posts smell? Well, I wouldn't want to smell. I'm thinking maybe I should roll over and agree with everything instead of partially agreeing

with what's said on this forum.


So much for being a free thinker like atheists convinced me to be when I was younger.


You 'put your finger on it' and wont tip your hand yet? Great can't wait to hear that.

[Sandman]

@Fake Messiah


Ah the Vatican. One person tells me they are incredibly rich. The next person tells me they've been sued into bankruptcy, and got no money, yay.

Now the vatican is a small place crammed with old buildings. Whatever that is worth. Did you say they built a castle there? Another country?

I understand the pope has a vacation residence but I hadn't heard he was building castles, and I've heard plenty about them.

I'm sure they have money.

---

I was a foolish catholic when I was young and saw the priest buy a car with parish money. I do not know how many cars the higher ups buy.

The higher ups hobnob with the rich and powerful so I wouldn't be suprised if they bought some nice cars.

Now I've seen Jewelry used for church services and some official occasions, but I'm not aware of the higher ups having great stores of jewelry.

Everybody says the Vatican has a lot of treasure, however I don't think you can dump so many treasures all in one year.

The luxury market for it would not be able to obsorb so many expensive religious Tokens and paintings, etc. when there's plenty of luxury goods already.

Further, many of their 'treasures' are dusty old doocuments. Limited market for those too. A little down the post I talk about church $ anyways.

Most of the non-document treasures are placed in museums for the public. Yeah they could be sold.

Most of the church is lay people, priests, nuns etc. Proportionally there aren't that many higher ups. That limited number of people are hogging vast sums?
In addition to having their grubby hands on museum pieces? Is the church just paying its common workers ridiculous sums?

Catholic charitiies is the largest religious charity in the world. The church dumps big money into it every year, plus money into it's many other smaller charities.


How much $ in catholic charities? 4.5 billion, world wide. Look it up. Surely they keep that $ too. How does that compare to the $800 million you say the government gives it.
Sure they don't need government $, Is the government $ being kept or thrown in with the rest of the charity money? Where are they keeping all these treasures
they buy every year for going on what a thousand years now? Do they just keep all that the money in the bank? Sitting there every year, accumulating interest.
So they can buy a castle now and then? They must own the banks by now. A conspiracy? They are not saving vast sums they're spending it?
Where's the investigative reporters when we need them, the brave Atheist to expose them. The church is suppressing the free press on top of it? Conspiracy again?
Yeah they got money. how much?  Why hasn't yearly compound interest made them richer than you say they are? The, few church hierarchy really spend so much every freaking week
that the bank accounts don't increase. Wow. Yeah they spend money innefficiently. A convention here a vacation there and the great sums of $ are gone?
Is it that the church is so rich or is it they spend their money inefficiently.
Maybe the 150 Billion they spend on hospitals and colleges is a waste. The few church leaders are keeping more than the 150 billion the hospitals and colleges get for themselves? Spending it? Saving it?

All that money hogged by the few church hierarchy, and still billions left for the charity? And the secular organisations? Less than $500 million for Oxfam, for example.

Damn the church is wealthier than god. Perhaps someone wants to say that on top of all that 'vast' money they already have, they keep the charity money?
Have you considered the possibility that they already spend far far more than they could get selling their museum pieces.


Now lets talk about how you say they should put the money into poor countries. As if they never do.


The great, majority of these countries are controlled by dictators, communists. You want the church to pump lots of $ into them. 
Do you know how hard it is to dump money into such corrupt countries. Your secular u.s. government does it and we know how that turns out.

How do you think they should deal with it when the dictator comes down on them because the church helped that tribe or race the dictator especially loves to

suppress or genocide? When he starts killing the christians in the country because he doesn't like the church's interference? Oh well let them kill, its about giving $.

There are plenty of other problems that come with operating in corrupt dictatorships, working around communists.

For example working in the middle of one of their many wars. How about the poor muslim majority countries, who will kill them on even a rumor that they preached jesus.  


Think the money will help fix it? Would you love to critisize the church for paying off dictators?

Maybe they should send a joke of a force - the vatican guards - with guns to force the charity on the country?


I'm not saying its all hard for the church but when considering issues like this it's best to at least try some perspective.

The christians love to repeat to each other and Us there dumbest arguements. Tho, all their arguments are dumb.

They never think it through or do their research. I feels like I'm getting a dumb Vatican arguement that's repeated again and again by atheists.

Should I just accept it? Like christians do their arguments?


Now about secular programs. I tried food stamps when I was down. Do you know you have to be employed,

or else a unemployed woman with children to get food stamps? I couldn't. You said Medicaid, It doesn't pay everything, which doesn't help if your unemployed.
My mother needed to purchase second insurance with medicaid to just to pay her cancer bills.


and then, taxes. I think the churches should pay taxes. But you haven't even demonstrated say, that they pocket the money. For all I know, the

money they save goes to charity. The church is bad, really bad, but it doesn't necessarily follow that they must be entirely bad at everything. You want them to be?
People want the churches gone. yeah. Shouldn't the atheists, the skeptics, the humanists do enough to the replace church charities in all their $ billions?

One last note:
Even secularists tell me the bureaucrats running the secular U.N. and its charities are corrupt. The U.N. is bad, in a lot of ways.
It's more nuanced than that tho. As for these other international secular charities. Have you looked up even one?
Google say, "Problems with Oxfam." They have real problems, like most international agencies have.
But the posters who mention these agencies speak sorta like I should see it as some kinda hopeful, ideal alternative, not see it for what it is, warts and all.

Politics.

---

Ugh so much text. So much to respond to.

Administrator Notice
^This, wall o' text put under hide tag. 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Easy to guess you worked a a christian food bank. They are prevalent enough.
As for evidence, I'm new here, can't post links.
A google search shows 63% of food banks are christian and nearly half of congregations in states surveyed contributed to both faith based and secular food banks.

You could simply tell me what website you got this info from without linking.

Wouldn't want to smell. Wondering if I should just roll over and agree with everybody. Instead of partially agreeing with them.

It's not about whether or not you agree. I disagree vigorously with several of my favorite members. It's the hoary tropes you're floating.

[Sandman]

@ [b]arewethereye[/b]

Damn. Another one who doesn't read my posts.

Never said Atheists, Secularists don't do charity.

Church charities sometimes use dirty tricks. It's bad, really bad. Never said they were angels.

Read my posts, maybe you'll notice that the secular charities aren't so perfect themselves.

Or you live in a fantasy universe where they are perfect? You haven't even considered that thy might be flawed I bet.

Or examined  secular charities and their problems.

I know plenty of christians live in their fantasy universe where they are the ideal champions of light and every flaw is quickly forgotten.

I encourage you to read my posts if you want to understand my position. Then ask questions.

[arewethereyet]

@ [b]arewethereye[/b]

Damn. Another one who doesn't read my posts.

Never said Atheists, Secularists don't do charity.

Church charities sometimes use dirty tricks. It's bad, really bad. Never said they were angels.

Read my posts, maybe you'll notice that the secular charities aren't so perfect themselves.

Or you live in a fantasy universe where they are perfect? You haven't even considered that thy might be flawed I bet.

Or examined  secular charities and their problems.

I know plenty of christians live in their fantasy universe where they are the ideal champions of light and every flaw is quickly forgotten.

I encourage you to read my posts if you want to understand my position. Then ask questions.

I understand that you are not here for any sort of honest discussion.  

Please explain, in a few words, how it is that you think there is a difference between secular and non-religious, AKA atheist, etc.

[arewethereyet]

For what its worth, kinda wish Atheists did charity better than them.

This says quite clearly - atheist - not secular.

Yeah, I read your stuff because I have to.  I wish I could say it fascinates and I can't wait to read you next dissertation.

And yeah, you smell.

[Sandman]

@[/url][b][url=https://atheistforums.org/user-756.html]Thumpalumpacus[/b]

Just google it. Its the AI summary. The AI sumarizes a bunch of docs from around the web.

Don't trust AI? It's not perfect but seems to do the job right 99% of the time. Too tired for deep deep research.



Hoary Tropes. Well....
Sorry I'm not innovative enough for you.
I've written a bunch of stuff. Surely it can't be all tropes.
Thought I was just using common sense. Guess an old arguement can't just be an arguement if its a trope.

I thought when I said if Atheists etc. want to do away with the church, yeah, but they should consider how the multibillion $ church  charities would need to be replaced,
that no one would have heard that one before but ehh, I guess you had it figured.

You're just a little too vague for me. If it isn't too tiring perhaps some trope examples.