Mosques

[Limewater]

People say "our church collects donations and runs a soup kitchen". I say atheists are just as capable as collecting donations for charitable causes and running a soup kitchen. And we don't need any book to tell us to do it.

I'm at work, so I only have time for some annoying, quick drive-by sniping.

I agree that religion is not necessary to do good, though the nature of "good" is probably another fun discussion for another time.

All that said, I do think it's worth pointing out that, at least in the United States, religious conservatives give more to charity than secular progressives. And it's not just giving to stuff like "the fancy new church steeple fund" or religious causes or anything.

Here's a quick copypasta from the first place I could find that referenced the article in question. It's actually from a movie box office website, but should be enough to find the actual relevant work:

"* Religious People Are Much More Generous



Category


Religious People


Non-Religious People

Give money to any cause


91%


66%

Give money to a non-religious cause


71%


61%

- Source: NonProfit Times. Kluth.org.


A study by philanthropy expert Arthur C. Brooks, former Syracuse University professor and president of the American Enterprise Institute, says that conservatives, especially religious conservatives, give far more money and volunteer time to charity than liberals and non-religious people.

The study shows that conservatives give 30% more money to charity than liberals, even though liberals earn 6% more money. Brooks also found that liberals who are religious give more money to charity than liberals who are not religious.

In fact, religious conservatives give 100 times more money to charity than secular liberals or “progressives.” They also volunteer more.

Brooks, author of WHO REALLY CARES? and THE BATTLE, also found that people in wealthier, more liberal states like California and New York are below average in charitable giving compared to people in poor states like Mississippi and Alabama.

In fact, the working poor in the United States give a larger percentage of their incomes to charity than any other income group, including the middle class and the rich!

Finally, the study shows that Americans are far more charitable than Europeans – 14 as much as the Italians, seven times as much as the Germans, and three and one-half times more charity than the French."

Source:

http://www.movieguide.org/news/3/861/-r ... to-charity


I'm not saying, "Oh, religious people are better" or anything. I just think it's relevant to this point.

But now I'd better get back to work. I'm sure this will start a great flame-war. I'm pretty sure the study was pretty controversial at the time. The author was Arthur C. Brooks.

[Dylan]

Even if the universe couldn't come to be without a god, even if the only way for nothing to turn into something was the result of some omnipotent being's desire, the chances of that being being (weird) one of the many religious gods that people believe in is so minute that the chance might as well not exist at all. The argument that everything has to come from somewhere does not equal man forming from mud and committing sin by eating an apple.

If that's the case, are you leaving open the possibility of an agnostic God? Also, I would argue that God's methodology must be simple and understandable by humans if he indeed has a purpose, task, or message for them. When all you have in the world are plants and animals, it makes sense to use them in place of something potential that people are not familiar with.

Next part, you're saying "religion is barely a factor in all this". Basically acknowledging that people do stupid things in the name of the religion, but not agreeing that it's widespread:

"Sixty-seven percent (67%) of women favor prayer in public schools versus 55% of men."

I'd say 61% of americans wanting to ignore the constitution and have public schools push religion on kids is widespread.

Is this the worst religion has to offer in America? If that is the case, than we have considerably more weighty problems than religion. A widespread case of the common cold is hardly something to be concerned about. Should people impose their views on others? I don't believe so. Yet, this happens to me frequently over all sorts of matters religious or political or whatever have you, and I just accept that as a part of life. If people telling you that we you believe is wrong is indeed a crime, then surely we live in a more wicked world than is imaginable. Likewise, this would mean that atheists doing the opposite to religious people must be considered an equal violation. A few years ago, a local airport by me had to take down their Christmas decorations because people thought that they were displaying bias towards religion. Is it the airport's decision what decorations they put up? Absolutely. However, people put up a big stink about it and the airport was forced to take them down through litigation. This issue is not one dimensional or only directed towards atheists, it's a fundamental conflict of people not seeing eye to eye.

You argue that being religious is unrelated to doing stupid things for the most part. I argue that being atheist is unrelated to not doing good things. Most examples of good things done by religion can be separated from religion in the same way that stupid things done in the name of religion can be separated from religion as per your examples.

People say "our church collects donations and runs a soup kitchen". I say atheists are just as capable as collecting donations for charitable causes and running a soup kitchen. And we don't need any book to tell us to do it.

As I see it, if you remove religion you don't remove the good of humanity, but you do remove the ability for people to excuse their stupid actions by quoting a book that teaches life lessons which aren't even as good as the average story in "chicken soup for the soul"

Your argument has a double standard. If religious people can do good and bad, and atheist people can do good and bad, then there is no overt distinction about which is better for the world as a whole. People don't need an excuse for their actions, all that's relevant are the actions themselves. If an atheist kills someone because they want to, and a religous person kills someone for God, there is no logical distinction between who's better since both actions and methods had identical outcomes. My main point is that people doing bad is inevitable, and they will proceed to do so with or without religion. If you eliminated religion, then I have no doubts that people would continue making selfish and harmful choices anyway.

Limewater also made an excellent argument on this matter.

I want you to respond to my argument about the origin of the universe, could you do that in your next post?

[Hatta]

As of yet we have no idea what things were like before that event (or indeed, even at that event, just a brief moment in time afterwards). For all we know right now it could be that the time line extends infinitely into the past.

According to Big Bang Theory, "what happened before" is a nonsensical question. Mathematically, time is a dimension just like space. Not only were the 3 spatial dimensions compressed into a singularity at the big bang, but time was as well. There's no more a "before the big bang" than there is a "to the left of the big bang".

To get your mind around this, consider that time is a representation of entropy (disorder). If the entire universe is compressed into a single point, there can be no disorder. That one point, a single value, tells you everything there is to know about the universe. To go backwards any further would require you to decrease entropy below zero, which would be meaningless.

Not that that matters in the context of this discussion. And the Big Bang is just a model, which is almost certainly flawed. I just thought I'd point that out. Cosmology is pretty cool, until you start getting into untestable string theories.

The key problem with using "God" as an explanation is that it discourages further inquery. It used to be that a thunder storm was "God" throwing lightning. Now we know it is a function of a charge differential between the clouds and the ground. If everyone had been happy with the "God does it" explanation there wouldn't be a furthering of scientific thought.

This I heartily agree with.

[Jrecee]

Even if the universe couldn't come to be without a god, even if the only way for nothing to turn into something was the result of some omnipotent being's desire, the chances of that being being (weird) one of the many religious gods that people believe in is so minute that the chance might as well not exist at all. The argument that everything has to come from somewhere does not equal man forming from mud and committing sin by eating an apple.

If that's the case, are you leaving open the possibility of an agnostic God? Also, I would argue that God's methodology must be simple and understandable by humans if he indeed has a purpose, task, or message for them. When all you have in the world are plants and animals, it makes sense to use them in place of something potential that people are not familiar with.

Next part, you're saying "religion is barely a factor in all this". Basically acknowledging that people do stupid things in the name of the religion, but not agreeing that it's widespread:

"Sixty-seven percent (67%) of women favor prayer in public schools versus 55% of men."

I'd say 61% of americans wanting to ignore the constitution and have public schools push religion on kids is widespread.

Is this the worst religion has to offer in America? If that is the case, than we have considerably more weighty problems than religion. A widespread case of the common cold is hardly something to be concerned about. Should people impose their views on others? I don't believe so. Yet, this happens to me frequently over all sorts of matters religious or political or whatever have you, and I just accept that as a part of life. If people telling you that we you believe is wrong is indeed a crime, then surely we live in a more wicked world than is imaginable. Likewise, this would mean that atheists doing the opposite to religious people must be considered an equal violation. A few years ago, a local airport by me had to take down their Christmas decorations because people thought that they were displaying bias towards religion. Is it the airport's decision what decorations they put up? Absolutely. However, people put up a big stink about it and the airport was forced to take them down through litigation. This issue is not one dimensional or only directed towards atheists, it's a fundamental conflict of people not seeing eye to eye.

You argue that being religious is unrelated to doing stupid things for the most part. I argue that being atheist is unrelated to not doing good things. Most examples of good things done by religion can be separated from religion in the same way that stupid things done in the name of religion can be separated from religion as per your examples.

People say "our church collects donations and runs a soup kitchen". I say atheists are just as capable as collecting donations for charitable causes and running a soup kitchen. And we don't need any book to tell us to do it.

As I see it, if you remove religion you don't remove the good of humanity, but you do remove the ability for people to excuse their stupid actions by quoting a book that teaches life lessons which aren't even as good as the average story in "chicken soup for the soul"

Your argument has a double standard. If religious people can do good and bad, and atheist people can do good and bad, then there is no overt distinction about which is better for the world as a whole. People don't need an excuse for their actions, all that's relevant are the actions themselves. If an atheist kills someone because they want to, and a religous person kills someone for God, there is no logical distinction between who's better since both actions and methods had identical outcomes. My main point is that people doing bad is inevitable, and they will proceed to do so with or without religion. If you eliminated religion, then I have no doubts that people would continue making selfish and harmful choices anyway.

I'm leaving open the possibility for anything. But I'm not going to pick a religion and go with it when I see no convincing arguments for them. I don't believe that if there is a god, that he has any particular plan for humans. We set ourselves so high on the totem pole, yet within the incomprehensibly vast universe, I think we're relatively meaningless in the grand scheme of things. We like the idea that some incredible being created us to serve some purpose and that if we fulfill that purpose we get super happy everlasting life. It's a nice thought, but there's no evidence to support it. It's just denying the obvious to ourselves.

There's always a bigger problem. But here, I'll name one; A bunch of guys hijacked a plane and killed thousands because they thought it would get them into super happy everlasting life world.

The christmas at the airport thing is bullshit. I celebrate christmas. It has become more of a cultural and marketing thing than a religious thing these days. You can see it as either one.

"If an atheist kills someone because they want to, and a religous person kills someone for God, there is no logical distinction between who's better since both actions and methods had identical outcomes."

But why would someone kill someone for god if they didn't believe in god? It's an enabler. Say the atheist dude kills a guy who slept with his wife, if that guy hadn't slept with his wife he never would have killed him. If the bible hadn't told the other guy to kill someone, he wouldn't have done it.

I want you to respond to my argument about the origin of the universe, could you do that in your next post?

Are you talking to me or limewater?

[Jrecee]

Limewater:

Interesting. There's a lot of other info I'd be interested to see behind that study. But you could take that as a positive of religion.

Did those donations come from individuals only? Or did it take into account church donations? Obviously if you have a bunch of people in one place and hand around a bowl to fill with cash, there's more money going towards something then a bunch of atheists sitting at home. Although I'd like to see the trail that the money in the basket follows, and how much of it goes to the Pope's fancy robes.

[MrPopo]

...response involving the Big Bang model...

Yes, I'm aware of all that. It was probably just some poor phrasing on my part. There's also a general limitation of our language. If you can understand the math it all makes sense, but trying to translate the concepts into english (or any standard human language) causes people to see fallacies that don't actually exist; they're introduced by an imperfect translation.

As far as saying belief in God hinders progress, I believe this would be similar to if we claimed general relativity discouraged further inquiry in the matter of astrophysics. The theory is widely accepted because it provides a full explanation for the phenomenon we've observed in the universe, but I do not believe that because it has been deemed an acceptable theory that it has hindered our interest in the matter. Likewise it used to be acceptable medical practice to drain blood in order to combat disease, but people advanced past this nonetheless. Until people reach a conclusive answer, I do not believe that they will stop searching.

There is one HUGE difference between God and various scientifict theories. God explains EVERYTHING. Thus, no reason to question. Conversely, let's look at various prominent scientific theories. First there's classical mechanics. That did a marvelous job until we started getting into the realm of things going very fast. At that point it didn't predict what actually happened, so it was clear there was a problem and a new theory was needed, so we got Relativity. But Relativity doesn't handle stuff at the atomic and sub-atomic level, so we needed a new theory for that, Quantum Mechanics. A scientific theory is taken to be true until we find data that contrasts what is predicted. With God, though, he can do everything.

[Limewater]

Limewater:

Interesting. There's a lot of other info I'd be interested to see behind that study. But you could take that as a positive of religion.

That's why I included the author's name and a snippet mentioning the published work in question. The author actually wrote a book on it:

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares- ... 815&sr=1-2

However, if you don't want to buy the book (and I don't expect that you do), you can read an old journalist piece about it here:

http://www.boston.com/news/education/hi ... who_gives/

Did those donations come from individuals only? Or did it take into account church donations? Obviously if you have a bunch of people in one place and hand around a bowl to fill with cash, there's more money going towards something then a bunch of atheists sitting at home. Although I'd like to see the trail that the money in the basket follows, and how much of it goes to the Pope's fancy robes.

The donation data was based on individuals. Those who self-identified as religious and conservative were more likely to give to charity and gave more to charity than those who didn't. They were apparently just as likely to give to non-religious causes as religious causes, and gave more even to non-religious causes, both in raw numbers and in terms of percentage of income. This also held true for hours of volunteer work and pints of blood donated, etc...

[MrPopo]

Did those donations come from individuals only? Or did it take into account church donations? Obviously if you have a bunch of people in one place and hand around a bowl to fill with cash, there's more money going towards something then a bunch of atheists sitting at home. Although I'd like to see the trail that the money in the basket follows, and how much of it goes to the Pope's fancy robes.

The donation data was based on individuals. Those who self-identified as religious and conservative were more likely to give to charity and gave more to charity than those who didn't. They were apparently just as likely to give to non-religious causes as religious causes, and gave more even to non-religious causes, both in raw numbers and in terms of percentage of income. This also held true for hours of volunteer work and pints of blood donated, etc...

That data doesn't surprise me. Most religions tend to teach charity so those raised religious are just exposed to the concept more. What would be more interesting to have numbers on (though I have no idea how you'd objectively gather them) would be the breakdown on people giving because they want to vs. giving because they feel obligated to.

[Limewater]

There is one HUGE difference between God and various scientifict theories. God explains EVERYTHING. Thus, no reason to question. ... A scientific theory is taken to be true until we find data that contrasts what is predicted. With God, though, he can do everything.

I don't think that this is quite fair. For most of modern history, at least in the West (I really don't know much about the East), scientific and mathematical advances came from religious people. Of course, that might not mean as much then as it does now, as much more of the population was religious, but it is true nonetheless. Isaac Newton wrote more on Theology than he did on Math and Science. You know who Copernicus was working for when he developed his heliocentric model for the universe? You know who published his work on the subject? The Catholic Church.

I'm not going to claim that religions have never attempted to stifle scientific progress, but I don't really see how one can take such final stance regarding the notion of G_d and scientific inquiry.

[Limewater]

We set ourselves so high on the totem pole, yet within the incomprehensibly vast universe, I think we're relatively meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

It's funny you should say this. This is very similar for the reason I have to be very skeptical of scientific theory. Our powers of observation are exceedingly limited. As George Box said, "All Models are wrong; some are useful."