|
Post by yezziqa on Jan 7, 2018 20:10:42 GMT
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 of 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. Let me just say IKEA, H&M, Volvo and then you can guess if we have rich people here. And we have never been communists, not even socialists.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 7, 2018 20:30:40 GMT
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 of 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. Let me just say IKEA, H&M, Volvo and then you can guess if we have rich people here. And we have never been communists, not even socialists. I'm not seeing your point. (Maybe it would help if I turned the football game off.) Who is bearing the burden of foreign aid? In the United States there are people who pay no tax at all for various reasons including not earning very much. They might vote for all sorts of aid, foreign and domestic, at no cost to them whatever.
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Jan 7, 2018 22:08:26 GMT
And we donate by voting for a government that wants to help people But that's not really donating, is it. That's just being generous with other people's money, along with the expectation that you will be shown equal generosity if you ever need it. Donating is being generous with your own money without demanding that everybody else be generous with theirs at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 7, 2018 22:13:50 GMT
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. St. Jude's Children's Hospital? And your point being that religious organizations can point to charitable work they do. So? No one has said they don't. But if you think that's evidence that "the loftier ideals do often find more support among the people who profess faith in a god", your reasoning skills are even worse than I'd previously realized. It's like saying, "Have you ever heard of the Alps?" to support the assertion that mountain ranges are more often found in Switzerland than in Afghanistan. Sure, the Alps exist, but that is not evidence to support the assertion. Even most junior high kids would understand that. (Btw, even though it's not the point, St. Jude's is a non-religiously affiliated hospital.)
And the experiment in the article (it looks like you didn't read it) described a GAME for the kids that put their sharing impulses to the test. There was nothing that called for any adult consultation.
You'd best move on to your next flight of fancy. This one of yours had a quick crash.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 7, 2018 22:28:50 GMT
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. St. Jude's Children's Hospital? And your point being that religious organizations can point to charitable work they do. So? No one has said they don't. But if you think that's evidence that "the loftier ideals do often find more support among the people who profess faith in a god", your reasoning skills are even worse than I'd previously realized. It's like saying, "Have you ever heard of the Alps?" to support the assertion that mountain ranges are more often found in Switzerland than in Afghanistan. Sure, the Alps exist, but that is not evidence to support the assertion. Even most junior high kids would understand that. (Btw, even though it's not the point, St. Jude's is a non-religiously affiliated hospital.)
And the experiment in the article (it looks like you didn't read it) described a GAME for the kids that put their sharing impulses to the test. There was nothing that called for any adult consultation.
You'd best move on to your next flight of fancy. This one of yours had a quick crash.
Look I know you have been around for a while, but I feel like I need to clarify something for you, you say: Let me just give you a small observation, the Arlon machine is similar to the Erjen bot and the Maya anomaly, you may think you have finally got a reasonable handle on their lack of reasoning skiils, intelligence or outright oddness, but sadly these are unlearning machine that function at a much greater level of ability than you can possibly realise. No matter how messed up you think they are, they will not doubt have implemented a new algorithm that plumbs new depths of insanity, you can never realise how messed up these things are they will always surprise you with new frontiers being broken. I find it is just easier to go along for the ride and prod them every now and again so they can assimilate less information to surprise you with.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 7, 2018 22:38:32 GMT
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. St. Jude's Children's Hospital? And your point being that religious organizations can point to charitable work they do. So? No one has said they don't. But if you think that's evidence that "the loftier ideals do often find more support among the people who profess faith in a god", your reasoning skills are even worse than I'd previously realized. It's like saying, "Have you ever heard of the Alps?" to support the assertion that mountain ranges are more often found in Switzerland than in Afghanistan. Sure, the Alps exist, but that is not evidence to support the assertion. Even most junior high kids would understand that. (Btw, even though it's not the point, St. Jude's is a non-religiously affiliated hospital.)
And the experiment in the article (it looks like you didn't read it) described a GAME for the kids that put their sharing impulses to the test. There was nothing that called for any adult consultation.
You'd best move on to your next flight of fancy. This one of yours had a quick crash.
It appears you're new to this game and a bit spoiled by the internet. Unless you can cite a "Richard Dawkins Children's Hospital" or something like it I'm way ahead at this point no matter how mountains are in Afghanistan. The "sharing impulses" game was designed to show atheists how stupid they are. As usual atheists fall for it. Maybe you shouldn't skip your turn.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 7, 2018 22:41:24 GMT
St. Jude's Children's Hospital? And your point being that religious organizations can point to charitable work they do. So? No one has said they don't. But if you think that's evidence that "the loftier ideals do often find more support among the people who profess faith in a god", your reasoning skills are even worse than I'd previously realized. It's like saying, "Have you ever heard of the Alps?" to support the assertion that mountain ranges are more often found in Switzerland than in Afghanistan. Sure, the Alps exist, but that is not evidence to support the assertion. Even most junior high kids would understand that. (Btw, even though it's not the point, St. Jude's is a non-religiously affiliated hospital.)
And the experiment in the article (it looks like you didn't read it) described a GAME for the kids that put their sharing impulses to the test. There was nothing that called for any adult consultation.
You'd best move on to your next flight of fancy. This one of yours had a quick crash.
It appears you're new to this game and a bit spoiled by the internet. Unless you can cite a "Richard Dawkins Children's Hospital" or something like it I'm way ahead at this point no matter how mountains are in Afghanistan. The "sharing impulses" game was designed to show atheists how stupid they are. As usual atheists fall for it. Maybe you shouldn't skip your turn. Rest my case.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 7, 2018 23:46:39 GMT
Look I know you have been around for a while, but I feel like I need to clarify something for you, you say: Let me just give you a small observation, the Arlon machine is similar to the Erjen bot and the Maya anomaly, you may think you have finally got a reasonable handle on their lack of reasoning skiils, intelligence or outright oddness, but sadly these are unlearning machine that function at a much greater level of ability than you can possibly realise. No matter how messed up you think they are, they will not doubt have implemented a new algorithm that plumbs new depths of insanity, you can never realise how messed up these things are they will always surprise you with new frontiers being broken. I find it is just easier to go along for the ride and prod them every now and again so they can assimilate less information to surprise you with. When I do talk to some posters (like Arlon) it is partly to, as you put it, "go along for the ride", and I am interested to see how quickly their responses will start to resemble Robert De Niro's death scene monologue in "Cape Fear". If you don't remember what I mean go to the 1:20 mark in this clip. www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctyDL-6f90w
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 8, 2018 1:02:04 GMT
Look I know you have been around for a while, but I feel like I need to clarify something for you, you say: Let me just give you a small observation, the Arlon machine is similar to the Erjen bot and the Maya anomaly, you may think you have finally got a reasonable handle on their lack of reasoning skiils, intelligence or outright oddness, but sadly these are unlearning machine that function at a much greater level of ability than you can possibly realise. No matter how messed up you think they are, they will not doubt have implemented a new algorithm that plumbs new depths of insanity, you can never realise how messed up these things are they will always surprise you with new frontiers being broken. I find it is just easier to go along for the ride and prod them every now and again so they can assimilate less information to surprise you with. When I do talk to some posters (like Arlon) it is partly to, as you put it, "go along for the ride", and I am interested to see how quickly their responses will start to resemble Robert De Niro's death scene monologue in "Cape Fear". If you don't remember what I mean go to the 1:20 mark in this clip. www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctyDL-6f90w
You know I have never watched cape fear, I think I might
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 8, 2018 1:22:00 GMT
“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. Eva Yojimbo has a point in that atheism doesn't really have any "organization." ...There can be however traits that express themselves more in atheists than others whatever the dictionary lists or doesn't in that regard. On THIS point we can agree. People from any group may exhibit traits more common in that group than in others, regardless of whether these traits have anything to do with the definition/classification of that group. However, you're the one that claimed that atheists are less likely to have lofty ideals than theists, but haven't really provided any evidence of this. FWIW, I'm not even certain if an absence of ideals is even necessarily an innately negative thing. I would guess that atheists tend to be more skeptical, in general, while ideals generally require a strong belief. It's possible atheists are more wary of ideals because they're very aware of how even supposedly good ideals can be warped into negatives given the situation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2018 1:37:10 GMT
On cursory inspection atheism and atheists do not appear to have an organization designed to pursue any special ideal. Neither do bald people.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 8, 2018 1:40:29 GMT
On cursory inspection atheism and atheists do not appear to have an organization designed to pursue any special ideal. Neither do bald people. Never heard of Hair Club For Men?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2018 2:16:32 GMT
Never heard of Hair Club For Men? Nope.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jan 8, 2018 2:57:37 GMT
St. Jude's Children's Hospital? And your point being that religious organizations can point to charitable work they do. So? No one has said they don't. But if you think that's evidence that "the loftier ideals do often find more support among the people who profess faith in a god", your reasoning skills are even worse than I'd previously realized. It's like saying, "Have you ever heard of the Alps?" to support the assertion that mountain ranges are more often found in Switzerland than in Afghanistan. Sure, the Alps exist, but that is not evidence to support the assertion. Even most junior high kids would understand that. (Btw, even though it's not the point, St. Jude's is a non-religiously affiliated hospital.)
And the experiment in the article (it looks like you didn't read it) described a GAME for the kids that put their sharing impulses to the test. There was nothing that called for any adult consultation.
You'd best move on to your next flight of fancy. This one of yours had a quick crash.
It appears you're new to this game and a bit spoiled by the internet. Unless you can cite a "Richard Dawkins Children's Hospital" or something like it I'm way ahead at this point no matter how mountains are in Afghanistan. The "sharing impulses" game was designed to show atheists how stupid they are. As usual atheists fall for it. Maybe you shouldn't skip your turn. Can you explain what point you think you were making by mentioning St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital? Because it's almost like you read the name and just said to yourself "Oh look, a religious charity! Boy, I've got them atheists now!" Newsflash: St. Jude's is a private, non-profit corporation with no religious affiliation whatsoever. It's entirely secular . Sorry to burst your shiny new bubble.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 8, 2018 3:11:04 GMT
It appears you're new to this game and a bit spoiled by the internet. Unless you can cite a "Richard Dawkins Children's Hospital" or something like it I'm way ahead at this point no matter how mountains are in Afghanistan. The "sharing impulses" game was designed to show atheists how stupid they are. As usual atheists fall for it. Maybe you shouldn't skip your turn. Can you explain what point you think you were making by mentioning St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital? Because it's almost like you read the name and just said to yourself "Oh look, a religious charity! Boy, I've got them atheists now!" Newsflash: St. Jude's is a private, non-profit corporation with no religious affiliation whatsoever. It's entirely secular . Sorry to burst your shiny new bubble. Then it was a strange choice for a name.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Jan 8, 2018 3:21:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jan 8, 2018 3:26:17 GMT
Can you explain what point you think you were making by mentioning St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital? Because it's almost like you read the name and just said to yourself "Oh look, a religious charity! Boy, I've got them atheists now!" Newsflash: St. Jude's is a private, non-profit corporation with no religious affiliation whatsoever. It's entirely secular . Sorry to burst your shiny new bubble. Then it was a strange choice for a name. Danny Thomas chose the name due to his own religious beliefs. That doesn't change the fact that it's a secular charity.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Jan 8, 2018 3:32:55 GMT
theoncommingstorm
Unless it is run by a religious order, it is a secular organization. More research is needed.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jan 8, 2018 4:12:08 GMT
theoncommingstorm Unless it is run by a religious order, it is a secular organization. More research is needed.Go take your meds.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Jan 8, 2018 4:23:23 GMT
Brandon
As usual you express your ignorance.
|
|