|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 7, 2018 3:48:09 GMT
It has often been found that atheists and people who believe in a god are more alike than would be expected considering their differences in outlook.
That can be said of people for better and worse reasons. Some people aim for the "better" apparently without faith in a god, and some people aim for worse or fail to aim for better even though they profess belief in a god.
Whether people believe in a god or not they often have some sort of ideals. Beauty pageant contestants often declare some sort of ideal they consider especially worthwhile. Politicians usually give voice to one ideal or another.
Some ideals in the various lists include helping the poor in various more and less descriptive ways, finding jobs for people that ensure their livelihood, better food production, a world without war or conflict, or perhaps at least domestic tranquility. Some ideals are less lofty like better mass transportation, less need for transportation, heating by natural gas, heating by renewable energy, better athletic facilities, more concert halls, more libraries, catchier tunes, sensible shoes.
Although it can be a mistake to generalize about people, the loftier ideals do often find more support among the people who profess faith in a god and a better future. On cursory inspection atheism and atheists do not appear to have an organization designed to pursue any special ideal. This brings up the story of the sour grapes.
Is atheism then the fox in the story of the sour grapes? The famous story was about a fox who tried and tried to reach grapes that were just out of his reach. Eventually he decided the grapes were sour anyway and quit trying.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 7, 2018 3:52:43 GMT
I would say no, because the Fox walked away. He didn't go on the Internet and start calling everyone else a bunch of bad names for not agreeing with him that the grapes were sour.
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jan 7, 2018 4:56:43 GMT
I hate grapes.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 7, 2018 7:35:05 GMT
Although it can be a mistake to generalize about people, the loftier ideals do often find more support among the people who profess faith in a god and a better future. Evidence? On cursory inspection atheism and atheists do not appear to have an organization designed to pursue any special ideal. That's because people don't unite over a lack of a belief in something.
|
|
|
Post by yezziqa on Jan 7, 2018 9:39:21 GMT
So if that is true, then why is Sweden with it's 85% atheists and agnostics the worlds number one giver of forgain aid?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 7, 2018 11:33:42 GMT
So if that is true, then why is Sweden with it's 85% atheists and agnostics the worlds number one giver of forgain aid? As hinted in the original post, the general rule does not always apply. That's one of the reasons it's necessary to be careful when generalizing. Then too, there are details you omitted. Sweden is not the "number one giver of foreign aid" unless you mean per capita or per something else like that and as long as you count government action as being characteristically atheist (Okay, granted). A major issue in the United States is that charity is not a proper role for government. The "greedy" Republicans donate more to charity than Democrats, they just prefer to do it on their own. The Democrats do not donate more to charity, they force someone else to do that, which is not exactly the same thing. Several atheist members of this board have recounted their charity work, actually their own work, not forced by others, serving meals to the homeless or donating cans to food drives. That is also an exception to the general rule and a better one than yours. Charity by religious organizations though still leads charity with the possible exception of major disasters that overwhelm their geographical location. Charity from religious organizations tends to address the causes of poverty better than from atheists.
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Jan 7, 2018 11:38:30 GMT
So if that is true, then why is Sweden with it's 85% atheists and agnostics the worlds number one giver of forgain aid? Because that's government policy that has very little to do with personal ideals. Unless you are trying to argue that the overriding reason why all those atheists and agnostics in Sweden vote for their government is because of their foreign aid policy, you are comparing two entirely separate things. If you are going to draw a comparison, you are better off looking at the figure for personal voluntary donations by country. Unfortunately the Americans win that one by quite a margin, over New Zealand in second place and Canada in third.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 7, 2018 12:39:25 GMT
1) Evidence? 2) That's because people don't unite over a lack of a belief in something. 1) I don't suppose you've heard of the internet? It's a "source" many people depend upon. Should they though? OMG, the stories I could tell about no they shouldn't! What else can you do though? 2) Maybe we are using the same sources then.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 7, 2018 12:44:50 GMT
1) Evidence? 2) That's because people don't unite over a lack of a belief in something. 1) I don't suppose you've heard of the internet? It's a "source" many people depend upon. Should they though? OMG, the stories I could tell about no they shouldn't! What else can you do though? 2) Maybe we are using the same sources then. 1) So your source is the internet? OK, where specifically on the internet did you find this evidence? 2) Well, my source is called "common sense." You know what group also doesn't unite to do good in the world? Those that don't believe in Bigfoot.
|
|
|
Post by yezziqa on Jan 7, 2018 13:15:38 GMT
So if that is true, then why is Sweden with it's 85% atheists and agnostics the worlds number one giver of forgain aid? As hinted in the original post, the general rule does not always apply. That's one of the reasons it's necessary to be careful when generalizing. Then too, there are details you omitted. Sweden is not the "number one giver of foreign aid" unless you mean per capita or per something else like that and as long as you count government action as being characteristically atheist (Okay, granted). A major issue in the United States is that charity is not a proper role for government. The "greedy" Republicans donate more to charity than Democrats, they just prefer to do it on their own. The Democrats do not donate more to charity, they force someone else to do that, which is not exactly the same thing. Several atheist members of this board have recounted their charity work, actually their own work, not forced by others, serving meals to the homeless or donating cans to food drives. That is also an exception to the general rule and a better one than yours. Charity by religious organizations though still leads charity with the possible exception of major disasters that overwhelm their geographical location. Charity from religious organizations tends to address the causes of poverty better than from atheists. Of course it's GDP, that how you can compare different countries. The USA has a population of 325 million, while Sweden has a mearly 10, yet Sweden gives 8 billion dollars while USA only gives 31. So what you are saying is that if a 1000 people round up together and give a homeless person 11 dollars in total, and a single person donate 10, the 1000 people are more generous?
|
|
|
Post by yezziqa on Jan 7, 2018 13:26:54 GMT
So if that is true, then why is Sweden with it's 85% atheists and agnostics the worlds number one giver of forgain aid? Because that's government policy that has very little to do with personal ideals. Unless you are trying to argue that the overriding reason why all those atheists and agnostics in Sweden vote for their government is because of their foreign aid policy, you are comparing two entirely separate things. If you are going to draw a comparison, you are better off looking at the figure for personal voluntary donations by country. Unfortunately the Americans win that one by quite a margin, over New Zealand in second place and Canada in third. Actually it is something we think about when voting. We have a party that is called SD, they hate all non whites (and several whites to, they are the former nazi party). A few months ago they tried to hijack Swedens former state church, by asking their members to register in the church and voting for them so the could force the church to stop forgain aid and their work with asylum seekers. Normally it is an election that no one cares about, but this election people went voting just to stop them. And we donate by voting for a government that wants to help people, and by having a system where the goverment helps the population, the need to help our own is minimal, they are already taken care of.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 7, 2018 14:26:42 GMT
1) Evidence? 2) That's because people don't unite over a lack of a belief in something. 1) I don't suppose you've heard of the internet? It's a "source" many people depend upon. Should they though? OMG, the stories I could tell about no they shouldn't! What else can you do though? 2) Maybe we are using the same sources then. “The internet” is neither evidence nor is it a source! It is a tool used to find sources of evidence, which you failed to provide supporting your presumption. So to dumb the question down for you: what evidence do you have (supposedly acquired from the internet) are you using to justify this notion that “the faithful” (in general) have loftier ideals than atheists because of organization. Because that sounds like some bullshit that you just pulled out of your ass. And I’m willing to be my that there is not one single shred of evidence that you have supporting it. Now would be a good opportunity for you to throttle back and just call this your OPINION. You know, if you wanted to save face a bit and not look even more like a moron than you already do.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 7, 2018 14:41:16 GMT
As hinted in the original post, the general rule does not always apply. That's one of the reasons it's necessary to be careful when generalizing...Several atheist members of this board have recounted their charity work, actually their own work, not forced by others, serving meals to the homeless or donating cans to food drives. That is also an exception to the general rule and a better one than yours. You can't keep saying that things are "exceptions to the rule" when you've offered no evidence that your rule even exists in the first place. Until you do, those "exceptions" actually stand as evidence that disproves your unsupported assertion. (And does anyone really have to point out that citing "the internet" doesn't constitute evidence?) So that's one thing.
But let's look at your assertion: "the loftier ideals do often find more support among the people who profess faith in a god". If I had to defend that statement I might point to surveys showing that church goers give more to charity than non-church goers. But the problem there is that those surveys count the weekly collection plate. Should a tacit requirement to contribute to your own group really be regarded as true altruism?
Other evidence on the subject? Here's some, but it cuts the opposite way: "More surprising was the tendency of children from religious households to share less than those from nonreligious backgrounds." www.scientificamerican.com/article/children-with-a-religious-upbringing-show-less-altruism/
In any event, I'm not going to go to the mat on whether religiosity or irreligiosity makes one more altruistic. I haven't given enough consideration to the question. And from what you have said so far, you seem to have given even less.
An additional thought: When you hear someone say, "If you're poor, it's your own fault", is the speaker more likely (per capita I mean) a theist or an atheist? I'd guess that a theist will more likely express this opposite to a lofty ideal. (No evidence, it's just my impression.) So, could it be that religiosity, instead of making people more altruistic, simply intensifies our convictions, whether such convictions are either selfless or selfish?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 7, 2018 15:40:50 GMT
tpfkar I would say no, because the Fox walked away. He didn't go on the Internet and start calling everyone else a bunch of bad names for not agreeing with him that the grapes were sour. Only the red 'fox' does that. You respond because you're a filthy miserable queer who hates God and people who believe in God. You deserve to burn in hell, and you will, and it couldn't happen to a nicer guy. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Jan 7, 2018 16:34:47 GMT
That's because people don't unite over a lack of a belief in something. And I don't think they should. However, The Freedom From Religion Foundation advertises in Scientific American.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 7, 2018 17:04:37 GMT
That's because people don't unite over a lack of a belief in something. And I don't think they should. However, The Freedom From Religion Foundation advertises in Scientific American.The FFRF doesn't unite people in a lack of belief in God. It unites people in the affirmative belief that church and state should be kept separate.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 7, 2018 19:13:45 GMT
That's because people don't unite over a lack of a belief in something. And I don't think they should. However, The Freedom From Religion Foundation advertises in Scientific American.So what? That has nothing to do with uniting people in a lack of belief in God. Apparently you don’t know what the Freedom From Religion Foundation actually does.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 7, 2018 19:15:00 GMT
1) I don't suppose you've heard of the internet? It's a "source" many people depend upon. Should they though? OMG, the stories I could tell about no they shouldn't! What else can you do though? 2) Maybe we are using the same sources then. “The internet” is neither evidence nor is it a source! It is a tool used to find sources of evidence, which you failed to provide supporting your presumption. So to dumb the question down for you: what evidence do you have (supposedly acquired from the internet) are you using to justify this notion that “the faithful” (in general) have loftier ideals than atheists because of organization. Because that sounds like some bullshit that you just pulled out of your ass. And I’m willing to be my that there is not one single shred of evidence that you have supporting it. Now would be a good opportunity for you to throttle back and just call this your OPINION. You know, if you wanted to save face a bit and not look even more like a moron than you already do. You do realize that I would take your requests for my evidence more seriously if I could see your evidence? Perhaps you can see how I have you at a disadvantage here. When people of faith do charitable works, they often do so in the name of their faith, and/or through the organization of their religion or local congregation. When atheists do charitable works they don't do them in the name of "atheism" or through any particularly "atheist" organizations. Already addressed in this thread, "voting" to take from the rich and give to the poor is not exactly the same as "charity." Maybe you shouldn't complain about the evidence then. Maybe you should take another approach entirely. Eva Yojimbo has a point in that atheism doesn't really have any "organization." Atheism is the absence of something like cold is the absence of heat or darkness is the absence of light. There can be however traits that express themselves more in atheists than others whatever the dictionary lists or doesn't in that regard. The dictionary doesn't list that people in the South drink more iced tea, yet they do in general drink more iced tea. It is a fact. The dictionary doesn't say that atheists are more or less "charitable" than others, but there might be evidence to support your view or mine on the matter. Another option for you is defining some ideal. How is "charity" an ideal anyway? How does "charity" improve the general lot? Doesn't charity just result in much more poor people even more dependent on others? Why not? How does atheism serve anything?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 7, 2018 19:26:07 GMT
As hinted in the original post, the general rule does not always apply. That's one of the reasons it's necessary to be careful when generalizing...Several atheist members of this board have recounted their charity work, actually their own work, not forced by others, serving meals to the homeless or donating cans to food drives. That is also an exception to the general rule and a better one than yours. You can't keep saying that things are "exceptions to the rule" when you've offered no evidence that your rule even exists in the first place. Until you do, those "exceptions" actually stand as evidence that disproves your unsupported assertion. (And does anyone really have to point out that citing "the internet" doesn't constitute evidence?) So that's one thing.
But let's look at your assertion: "the loftier ideals do often find more support among the people who profess faith in a god". If I had to defend that statement I might point to surveys showing that church goers give more to charity than non-church goers. But the problem there is that those surveys count the weekly collection plate. Should a tacit requirement to contribute to your own group really be regarded as true altruism?
Other evidence on the subject? Here's some, but it cuts the opposite way: "More surprising was the tendency of children from religious households to share less than those from nonreligious backgrounds." www.scientificamerican.com/article/children-with-a-religious-upbringing-show-less-altruism/
In any event, I'm not going to go to the mat on whether religiosity or irreligiosity makes one more altruistic. I haven't given enough consideration to the question. And from what you have said so far, you seem to have given even less.
An additional thought: When you hear someone say, "If you're poor, it's your own fault", is the speaker more likely (per capita I mean) a theist or an atheist? I'd guess that a theist will more likely express this opposite to a lofty ideal. (No evidence, it's just my impression.) So, could it be that religiosity, instead of making people more altruistic, simply intensifies our convictions, whether such convictions are either selfless or selfish?
Have you heard of St. Jude's Children's Hospital? It helps any children with medical problems whether they can pay or not. So you can STHU up about my evidence then right there. Or let's go, your turn. As for children giving things away, no that is not a good idea. Good parents tell their children that if they see someone they believe is in need to consult with them (the children's parents) about what can or ought to be done to help. Your evidence supports my view that atheists are not really helpful. That's my favorite way to argue, using your own evidence against you.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 7, 2018 19:55:22 GMT
As hinted in the original post, the general rule does not always apply. That's one of the reasons it's necessary to be careful when generalizing. Then too, there are details you omitted. Sweden is not the "number one giver of foreign aid" unless you mean per capita or per something else like that and as long as you count government action as being characteristically atheist (Okay, granted). A major issue in the United States is that charity is not a proper role for government. The "greedy" Republicans donate more to charity than Democrats, they just prefer to do it on their own. The Democrats do not donate more to charity, they force someone else to do that, which is not exactly the same thing. Several atheist members of this board have recounted their charity work, actually their own work, not forced by others, serving meals to the homeless or donating cans to food drives. That is also an exception to the general rule and a better one than yours. Charity by religious organizations though still leads charity with the possible exception of major disasters that overwhelm their geographical location. Charity from religious organizations tends to address the causes of poverty better than from atheists. Of course it's GDP, that how you can compare different countries. The USA has a population of 325 million, while Sweden has a mearly 10, yet Sweden gives 8 billion dollars while USA only gives 31. So what you are saying is that if a 1000 people round up together and give a homeless person 11 dollars in total, and a single person donate 10, the 1000 people are more generous? I did not dispute your numbers. I did guess your meaning, and I suppose most people of average intelligence would. My point was that there can be exceptions and it would not surprise me much if Sweden is one. There are other mathematical considerations not as obvious though. For example how stratified is society in Sweden? What is the ratio of the wealth of the least wealthy to the wealth of the most wealthy? What part of that strata is bearing the burden of foreign aid? In the United States the ration is extreme, perhaps the "worst" in the world. Society is China is far less stratified. At one time the wealthiest only had eight times as much as the least wealthy. Things probably have changed since the fall of communism there, I'm not sure how much.
|
|