Atheism: all talk, no action

I could have sworn that there were other polls out there which showed that atheists were more likely to donate to charity than theists. Either way, I wouldn't really trust the data on this matter from a source that is explicitly Christian. For obvious reasons there's likely to be bias in the way they conducted their poll.gameguy6700

No, what G_C says is correct.  Religious people are more likely to donate than secular people.  And, for that matter, conservatives are also more likely to donate than liberals.  In terms of "putting one's money where one's mouth is", both groups are indeed consistent on average with the doctrines that they tend to profess.

(It should be noted that both of those articles do come from conservative sources, but as far as I can tell there is no reason to doubt the findings of which they speak.)

Of course, it is also the case that the working poor and the rich - who are more likely to be religious or conservative (respectively) - are those who give the most.  So one can obviously raise the question of whether this is correlation or causation.  But in this respect, I do believe that those conservatives and religious folk who criticize liberals and atheists are actually correct, although obviously those who do not give much neither are guaranteed to be liberal or atheist nor would suddenly give more if they called themselves conservative or religious.

For reasons of princiciple I do not make any open disclosures of any charitable activity I might undertake or have undertaken, but I will say that I do my part to attempt to bring things back in line, and I would invite everyone else to do the same.  Like the commentator in the second article says, if the working poor can be the most generous group in America per dollar earned, "I can't spare any money" is not a valid excuse.

The problem of evil was one of the biggest reasons why I became a non-believer. Honestly I am not saying this just to support atheism here but I became more soft hearted towards the poor and beraved after realising that there is no god.

I live in pakistan and you get to see several people in extremely miserable state of existence every day you go out of your house. I often used to decline a beggar by saying "god will help you" "may god be with you" etc. But when I realised it is only us the more fortunate ones who can help them and no one else, then I actually started helping them more.

Right now though I barely get to cover my monthly costs so I dont give anything these days, yes I will not buy a cheaper cosmetic item to save money for the poor. If I didnt live for myself than I will ultimately be consumed by jealousy as I will be left behind in life, that could ultimately ruin my life so living selfishly is really not all that selfish in my opinion, it's like a "need".

However will it be different if I was religious? No it wouldnt.

I have absolutely no reason to believe that a believer is more likely to give first hand help and donation than an atheist.

The point where religion "apparantly" wins is perhaps the organised religious charities where most people belonging to a particular sect give a fixed amount from their income to that charity. Even those who are unlikely to pay by themselves simply pay as part of their culture. My father gives an astranomical amount every month in their religious community, he certainly wouldnt have given that much if he was an atheist. So it's true then that religious people give more charity? No it's a trap!

First of all let me make it clear that I donot know what organised christian charities do with the money, my knowledge only represents muslims. Ok so yes they use the money for helping the poor and the sick but that is not all. The money is used to finance madrassas(where children are tought about the quran and the prophet free of cost) lol charity my ass! But ofcourse for a believing muslim that IS a charity, can you begin to see the problems here? There is a muslim institution here which teaches islamic theology free of cost, not only that but accomodation and food in the hostel is free lol wut? It only takes those people in who are willing to serve there whole life for the "cause of Islam". They will either become a missionary or be the ullema of a mosque, both are non-profit jobs so their salaries will come from people's donations.

Then there are the add-free islamic tv channels which are again funded by that money. All these things are not charity and dont help humanity in the least bit of it, infact these instituitions are brain washing nonsense as there students donot even know the basics of evolution lol wut? A person has dedicated his whole life to religious cause thinking like it is the highest ideal and you do not even expose him to the other side of the argument? Funding a tv channel where the likes of zakir naik come to spow their BS which millions hold as a fact? Sorry that is just pathetic, even giving it the name of charity is ridiculous.

And last but certainly NOT the least, atheists are more likely to give donation to scientific research which ultimately directly helps humanity for an infinite number of generations....and religious people are less likely to donate to science which means that the more non-religious the world is, the more faster science will advance. No amount of emotional comfort that religion has given people over the years can even come close to what medical science has given them....

I have absolutely no reason to believe that a believer is more likely to give first hand help and donation than an atheist.

The point where religion "apparantly" wins is perhaps the organised religious charities where most people belonging to a particular sect give a fixed amount from their income to that charity. Even those who are unlikely to pay by themselves simply pay as part of their culture. My father gives an astranomical amount every month in their religious community, he certainly wouldnt have given that much if he was an atheist. So it's true then that religious people give more charity? No it's a trap!

Gambler_3

I have to assume that you didn't look at the links I posted.  Not only do religious people give more than secular people, but they also give more to nonreligious causes than secular people.  Of course, this data is only of Americans, so I can't speak for differences that may exist in Pakistan, but in America, the bottom line is that not only do religious people give over a thousand dollars more per year than secular people, all else being equal, but also they give more to causes outside their religion, too.

 

And last but certainly NOT the least, atheists are more likely to give donation to scientific research which ultimately directly helps humanity for an infinite number of generations....and religious people are less likely to donate to science which means that the more non-religious the world is, the more faster science will advance. No amount of emotional comfort that religion has given people over the years can even come close to what medical science has given them....

Gambler_3

What exactly is your source for that assertion?

The problem with that research is that it does not separate communist atheists with anti-communist atheists. Just because an atheist is more likely to be a communist than a chrsitian and a communist is more likey to give less charity does not in any way mean that disbelief in god = less charity. To simply conclude from this that religious belief = more charity is just wrong!

Now if you are going to say that disbelief in god makes it more likely for you to be a communist then this is simply a political argument then whether communism is better or worse and obviously it's better for the poor...

What exactly is your source for that assertion?

GabuEx

Would someone who finds stem cell research and genetic engineering ammoral ever donate money to the cause?

The problem with that research is that it does not separate communist atheists with anti-communist atheists. Just because an atheist is more likely to be a communist than a chrsitian and a communist is more likey to give less charity does not in any way mean that disbelief in god = less charity. To simply conclude from this that religious belief = more charity is just wrong!

Now if you are going to say that disbelief in god makes it more likely for you to be a communist then this is simply a political argument then whether communism is better or worse and obviously it's better for the poor...

Gambler_3

First, where in the world are you getting that "not giving to charity" = "communism"? :?

To conclude from the data that religious belief = more charity is, um, something that has to be done.  A rigorous analysis of the data led to the conclusion that, all else being equal (including political ideology), religious people give around $1,300 more to charity per year on average than secular people.  That is just a fact.  Of course this doesn't separate charitable atheists from non-charitable atheists, nor does it separate charitable religious people from non-charitable religious people.  Why would it?  The question was "On average, do religious people give more to charity than non-religious people?" and the answer is "yes".

Religion and science have been increasingly thought of as mutually exclusive among many theists. There are people who geniounly believe evolution is some sort of a conspiracy started by darwin against god.:shock:

There is strong opposition to the big bang theory and evolution in america, what makes you think that any of those people who simply oppose 2 of the modern foundations of science would donate any money to it?

Would someone who finds stem cell research and genetic engineering ammoral ever donate money to the cause? 

Gambler_3

I don't know what the climate is like in Pakistan, but in America it's not as though all religious people are blanketly anti-science.  There are a few places where some religious people clash with science, yes, but not in most places.  I would be rather surprised if a majority of religious people were opposed to, say, funding the search for a cure for cancer.

Your own atricle is saying that.

"The people who give one thing tend to be the people who give everything in America. You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away." 

What does this have to do with religion?

I did not read your first link yet, I read only the second one...

Where does it talk about non-religious charity? The first article? Can you please tell me what's the important paragraph in that article cuz it's kinda too long to read all.:P

The 1800 figure in the second one is completely useless as it includes religious charity...

"Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street." 

From what tests was this concluded? Besides can you tell me what's the proportion of the population in terms of non-religious and religious in america?

Your own atricle is saying that.

"The people who give one thing tend to be the people who give everything in America. You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away." 

What does this have to do with religion?

Gambler_3

Nothing, I just included that as a second piece of information.  And believing that the government's job is to make incomes more equal is not exactly communist...

I did not read your first link yet, I read only the second one...

Gambler_3

Well, maybe if you'd read it, you would know what I'm talking about. :P

 

Where does it talk about non-religious charity? The first article? Can you please tell me what's the important paragraph in that article cuz it's kinda too long to read all.:P

Gambler_3

"Some people might object to my conflation here of religious and nonreligious charity. One might argue, for example, that religious charity is more likely to take place for non-altruistic reasons than is nonreligious giving and volunteering: Religious people might give because of social pressure, for personal gain (such as stashing away rewards in Heaven), or to finance the services that they themselves consume, such as sacramental activities. Therefore, disparities in charity might disappear when we only consider explicitly nonreligious giving and volunteering. The sccbs data do not support this hypothesis, however: Religious people are more generous than secular people with nonreligious causes as well as with religious ones. While 68 percent of the total population gives (and 51 percent volunteers) to nonreligious causes each year, religious people are 10 points more likely to give to these causes than secularists (71 percent to 61 percent) and 21 points more likely to volunteer (60 percent to 39 percent). For example, religious people are 7 points more likely than secularists to volunteer for neighborhood and civic groups, 20 points more likely to volunteer to help the poor or elderly, and 26 points more likely to volunteer for school or youth programs. It seems fair to say that religion engenders charity in general — including nonreligious charity."

Second section, ninth paragraph.

  

The 1800 figure in the second one is completely useless as it includes religious charity...

"Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street." 

Gambler_3

"Including exlicitly nonreligious charities" - i.e., they are more likely than secular Americans to give to nonreligious charities, too.

   

From what tests was this concluded?

Gambler_3

If you really want to know, you can look up the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, which the articles cite.

    

Besides can you tell me what's the proportion of the population in terms of non-religious and religious in america?

Gambler_3

That information is irrelevant, as these figures are percentages that treat the two groups as separate.  They're not comparing the total amount each group gives or anything like that.

I do believe charities are one of the very few good things about religion. Even though the charity that religious people give is spent very inefficeintly as so much of the money is wasted in superstitous activity, if the rest of the money is still more than non-religious than good thing for religion.

However lets not forget that it is considered a bit of a taboo in religions to not give any charity at all, not so much a case in atheism. The religious books very heavy emphasise charity and we know how seriously some people take their books.

The good that religious books talk is far outweighed by the bad. The thing is that the good would still be done if not for the holy book as you can see that there isnt an astranomical difference between the religious and non-religious giving charity, well there is a difference but the atheists also give charity. The bad however in the religious books which makes good people do bad things only exists because of religion.

The religious people are only giving more for "hope of reward, forgiveness from punishment". I have absolutely no doubt that this is the reason for the difference. Here's a saying of muhammad,

"You give in the way of allah and he will give you back tenfold". There ARE people who actually take it seriously as in literally.:?

What's wrong with this? The world is better off no matter what ulterior motives the religious person may have right? Well not really since if he takes this seriously he also takes all the evil things taught by their religion seriously and we all know what happens then...

Let me get this straight, you're presented with the unassailable fact that religious people give significantly more to every kind of charity than secular people, and all you can say is basically "religion is still bad; religious people give money just because they have to or are selfish".

I mean, really?

And as far as your assertion that it wouldn't make much difference if everyone were secular, let's do the math.  According to the survey, 33% of the sample were religious (actively practicing their religion), 26% were secular (not practicing their religion, or having no religion), and 41% were somewhere in the middle (somewhat practicing their religion).  According to the most recent estimate, the United States currently has a population of 303,824,640.  That means that about 100,262,131 are religious, about 78,994,406 are secular, and about 124,568,103 are in the middle.

Also according to the survey, the average religious person gives $2,210 per year and volunteers 12 times per year, while the average secular person gives $642 per year and volunteers 5.8 times per year.  In addition, the average person in the middle gives about $1,536 per year and volunteers 10.9 times per year.

So first, we have our baseline: 100,262,131 people giving an average of $2,210 and 12 volunteer occasions per person per year, 78,994,406 people giving an average of $642 per year and 5.8 volunteer occasions per person per year, and 124,568,103 people giving an average of 1,536 and 10.9 volunteer occasions per person per year gives us a total of $463,630,324,370 and 3,019,105,449 instances of volunteer work going to charity each year in the United States.

What would happen, then, if everyone were secular?  Well, if the numbers stayed the same, we would then have 303,824,640 giving an average of $642 per year and 5.8 volunteer occasions per person per year, giving a total of $195,055,418,880 and 1,762,182,912 instances of volunteer work going to charity each year in the United States.  That is a decrease from the baseline of $268,574,905,490 (58%) and 1,256,922,537 instances of volunteer work (42%) every year.

In other words, if there were only secular people in the United States, charities would be forced to operate with 58% less donations and 42% less volunteers.

So, would you like to tell those impoverished families who rely on these charities every year for food, shelter, and clothing that it's a worthwhile tradeoff that these charities can only serve half as many people?  Does the nonexistence of religion, in your view, really provide that much benefit?

Why are you forgeting that a significant amount of that money is used for stuff that is completely useless from a material point of view?

The building and maintanence of churches? How does the father earn a living? Where does all the money comes from which gives the pope an end of this world luxury life? Who are the people financing the fail i.e "intelligent design"? There would prolly be many more such costs but I am not that familiar with christianity. Imagine how much money would be saved in a world where no money was spent on superstition?

Atheism indeed is more likely to make people a little more materialistic but it's not necessarily a bad thing. What if atheism motivates some of those poor people to actually go out instead of "begging in the name of god"? I dont know about america but in pakistan there are some extremely lazy poor people.:|

So are you saying that it's not a better tradeoff if gays get full marriage rights in all of america? No more relationship breakups or rejections due to religious differences? No more bans on scientific research? No more religious discrimination of any kind? Again I dont live in america and I am sure there are more problems created by religion than just those.

You CANT simply consider the wrong done by only american believers here. How many christians got aids thinking that using condoms is a "sin"? I mean really some donation to poor people is worth more than such crap? If america was a secular dominated country then private prostitution and assisted suicide would prolly be legal. I dont even know how you can argue against those things being legal.

Now if you bring in all the religions and the world as a whole then it's not even a contest. It is nice that religious people give more charity I freely admit, however as I have said it is only because people take their religious books seriously and there are more bad things done due to that seriousness than good so the world would actually be better off without them taking it seriously.

I mean isnt the argument here that if more people become non-religious in america than charity will reduce so religion is good? I have already shown you how many things would improve without religion JUST in america, this is just one unfortunate but worthwhile tradeoff. What do you want me to do? Salute something that the world would actually be better off without? And there is no way to make religious people stop doing the bad that they do and keep them doing the good things they do in the name of god. They will either do both things or they will do neither.

It is extremely easy to get carried away here by looking at the figures but it really isnt all that it looks like when you deeply analyse the situation. If there are religious people in america in majority, then the impact of that is far reaching on the religious beliefs of the world in general and so will be the lack of religion...

Well, let me first say that I don't believe that anyone is truly selfless. Whether we realize it or not, we are always being motivated by our self-interests, even when undertaking seemingly altruistic tasks. 

Now I think that religion does have the ability to motivate people to donate to charity (now whether or not the charities they are donating are worthwhile is another story). But I think it is a double-edged sword.

I once saw Jonah Goldberg, a conservative commentator, talking on C-SPAN, and he was talking about how liberals and conservatives view the world. One thing he said was that one of the goals of liberalism is to essentially make the best out of this world so everyone could have the oppurtunity to have a decent existence - having social welfare programs to help the poor and to get them out of poverty, having universal health care, having social security, ect.  

And as for conservatives, he said that they do want to help those in need, but he basically said that it's alright if we don't help those in need to the best of our ability because after this world, everyone who is good and decent will be going to heaven.

So while what he said was in reference to political identity, I think a lot of it is true for theological identity as well.

Just look at all of the work that Mother Teresa did. For the most part she didn't help the poor get out of poverty, she just helped the poor cope with their situation until they died. As she put it, "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."

So while religion might possibly motivate believers to donate, it also can create a sense of complacency and a sense of nihilism vis-a-vis suffering in the world. 

As for your question, G_C, I think that it would nice if atheists gave more to charity, but I do think that it's okay if they do not want to give to charity, because there are other things that you can do to help those in need besides giving money to a charitable organization.  

Eh, I'm a bit of a Scrooge when it comes to charity. I'm happy to put five bucks into a donation bucket but I hate getting roped in with monthly payments and the like.domatron23

I'm kind of the same here actually. :P

I could have sworn that there were other polls out there which showed that atheists were more likely to donate to charity than theists. Either way, I wouldn't really trust the data on this matter from a source that is explicitly Christian. For obvious reasons there's likely to be bias in the way they conducted their poll.gameguy6700

That same group also found that evangelical Christians divorce at higher rates. Now, personally, I don't believe that's true because I haven't found it in my experience to be true.