EADD Chaplaincy

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

Those stats are based on self reporting. Don't you think those who have reported themselves as Highly Religious might overstate their charitable activities? Someone wishing to project a holy image is less likely to admit that they don't help as much as Jesus would have liked them to. They might also interpret their weekly donation at the church as an act of charity.

Those stats do not say what you think they are saying. What was the sample group?

I presented those statistics to back up the other statistics that were being questioned. They aren't meant to be stand alone statistics.

 

[Ismene]

Yes you can try and refute it and split hairs, saying what type of giving is it etc. But then you look at the other studies and see that they give more to all types of charities.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577

That's not "other studies" is it - that's Arthur again.

It seems the only person claiming this is Arthur. The gallup poll doesn't mean anything because it's confusing religious giving with charity.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

That's not "other studies" is it - that's Arthur again.

It seems the only person claiming this is Arthur. The gallup poll doesn't mean anything because it's confusing religious giving with charity.

Arthur isn't just claiming this, he is proving it. His studies included thousands and thousands of people from across the country, and class brackets. It is so so telling that you haven't presented me with anything that refutes this if it is the case.

 

[Ismene]

Yet he doesn't seperate religious giving and charity does he. As several commentators have noted - once you do this the athiests give as much as the christians.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

Yet he doesn't seperate religious giving and charity does he. As several commentators have noted - once you do this the athiests give as much as the christians.

Yes he does, have you read any of the articles?

"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."

 

[Allein]

OK my justification for calling GOd male is because I experience Him as male

I also experience creation and God as female though.. But His maleness is most apparent to me Ok..


Look im female. I have Christ in me.. God is male.. He has me in Him. Its a brain conundrum. God for me is primarily male. firstly male. Originally King.


I dont like Richard Dawkins, sorry, hes a sad little grey man with no sense of humour. I'm sure he has a purpose. God knows what it is.

Ive read the Dawkins Delusion :D Will get around to DDs books at some point atm* but there are librarys full of books that I consider both more interesting and informative than dds dry old bog roll.

Still looking at other posts.. actually Busty.. ( first will be last and last will be first) can we post about your question after Ive got dressed love ?

* sincerely, i dont know what im doing wrong with your nick here. was almost afraid to use it :D

Is it me ? is it avoidance or do you have some kind of strange blind spot :-

Your still side stepping my simple creationism question, answering all sorts of other queries posting pretty pictures, its really a simple yes or no, I have Christian friends on both sides of the fence.

If you are declining to answer just say so but it seems like reasonable question to ask a Christian given Christians themselves debate it on a regular basis

 

[Ismene]

Religious people are more generous than secular people with nonreligious causes as well as with religious ones.

That's not quite the whole story tho blunts - you can give to a "non-religious" cause like starving orphans - but are you doing so from a massive building with a cross on the top of it?

You can give to a "non-religious" cause - like Mother Theresa - but you still do so in a way that promotes your personal superstition. I'd still call that religious giving even tho Arthur could argue it's a "non-religious" cause.

 

[Ismene]

If you are declining to answer just say so but it seems like reasonable question to ask a Christian given Christians themselves debate it on a regular basis

It may depend on the purity of the christian concerned atm

 

[YellowPolkaDotHalo]

brb atm

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

That's not quite the whole story tho blunts - you can give to a "non-religious" cause like starving orphans - but are you doing so from a massive building with a cross on the top of it?

You can give to a "non-religious" cause - like Mother Theresa - but you still do so in a way that promotes your personal superstition. I'd still call that religious giving even tho Arthur could argue it's a "non-religious" cause.

No, it states explicitly secular charities. Secular charities by their very nature do not go around with crosses plastered over everything in the manner you have described. If someone had donated to Mother Theresas charity, then Brookes would classify that as religious giving, not secular.

 

[Ismene]

No, it states explicitly secular charities.

Not quite, the example Arthur gives is that christians are slightly more likely to volunteer for allegedly "secular" things like local youth programs or helping the poor and elderly. It doesn't really say that they would be banned from promoting their religion in these allegedly "secular" activities. My guess is that a christian on a youth program is going to be telling the kids "You ever thought of letting the lord into your life son?"

It doesn't say christians are contributing to abortion charities.

I think Arthur might be a being a little disingenous with this one.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

Not quite, the example Arthur gives is that christians are slightly more likely to volunteer for allegedly "secular" things like local youth programs or helping the poor and elderly. It doesn't really say that they would be banned from promoting their religion in these allegedly "secular" activities. My guess is that a christian on a youth program is going to be telling the kids "You ever thought of letting the lord into your life son?"

It doesn't say christians are contributing to abortion charities.

I think Arthur might be a being a little disingenous with this one.

You aren't reading it:
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)

So 10% more religious people give to secular charities than non-religious people. Christians needn't finance an abortion charity in order to finance a charity outside of their faith.

 

[Ismene]

Yeah but the example of a "non-religious cause" that Arthur is using is "volunteering for the local youth group". Now obviously a christian is going to join the local youth group to spread christianity isn't he. So is that really contributing to a secular cause or just a neat way of spreading the word of the lord?

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

Yeah but the example of a "non-religious" cause that Arthur is using is "volunteering for the local youth group". Now obviously a christian is going to join the local youth group to spread christianity isn't he.

He doesn't give an example for the charitable giving to secular organisations, he just states that the religious are much more likely to give to nonreligious causes. Yes, he does give examples of religious volunteering in non-religious organisations, but that's beside the point.

Why do you presume that a Christian would get involved in a group just to spread the word? That needn't be the case, and many non-religious youth groups wouldn't be very happy if they did do that. I certainly wouldn't do it.

The religious are even more likely to give blood! I do wonder how you'll try and wriggle you way out of that one. Perhaps they see it as a chance to convert the nurse? lol

 

[Allein]

It may depend on the purity of the christian concerned atm

Clearly this is what I'm trying to establish but I'm not having a great deal of productive discussion on what is a simple yes or no question and I'm not sure why. All the other Christian and Muslim people I've talked have been more than happy to tell you about their beliefs. I have a Muslim who works for me and I've learned a great deal from him about Islaam, he knows i don't believe in organised religion but also knows I have quite a bit of experience of Christianity. He is proud of his beliefs and very sure of what they are specifically.

In many ways I find Islaam seems a much purer religion in tha there is the Quran written by one man in Arabic and that is supposed to be the word of god as written by the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) they do not believe that this can be translated and still be the word of god, which has some sense of logic to it to me. Any uncertainty about the interpretation of the Quran should be discussed with the Imam at the Mosque they attend who will provide guidance.

Don't get me wrong I'm not about to become a Muslim I have issues with the whole concept of organised religion and the idea of God as any type of entity but Islaam seems to hold together when you ask simple questions than Christianity which just seems to be a "pick a mix" of factions interpreting and re interpreting different bits of old documents written at different times by different people.

 

[Mailmonkey]

This looked like being an interesting thread.

it's now descended into a fucking pedantic "debate" about how to interpret some "statistics" again.

I'm out.

 

[Mr Smokes Blunts.]

Clearly this is what I'm trying to establish but I'm not having a great deal of productive discussion on what is a simple yes or no question and I'm not sure why. All the other Christian and Muslim people I've talked have been more than happy to tell you about their beliefs. I have a Muslim who works for me and I've learned a great deal from him about Islaam, he knows i don't believe in organised religion but also knows I have quite a bit of experience of Christianity. He is proud of his beliefs and very sure of what they are specifically.

In many ways I find Islaam seems a much purer religion in tha there is the Quran written by one man in Arabic and that is supposed to be the word of god as written by the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) they do not believe that this can be translated and still be the word of god, which has some sense of logic to it to me. Any uncertainty about the interpretation of the Quran should be discussed with the Imam at the Mosque they attend who will provide guidance.

Don't get me wrong I'm not about to become a Muslim I have issues with the whole concept of organised religion and the idea of God as any type of entity but Islaam seems to hold together when you ask simple questions than Christianity which just seems to be a "pick a mix" of factions interpreting and re interpreting different bits of old documents written at different times by different people.

How much logic is there in the fact that it is apparently untranslateable, when the bible has been translated into hundreds of languages with it's meaning still in tact? Muslims are in no way in agreement on any subject there is. There are dozens of scholars that one must talk to before coming to a conclusion on any one issue, because the Quaran and the Haddith are so easy to interpret one way or another. If you want an example you only have to look at terrorists, who decide to take the violent passages to heart, then look at the more moderate Western Muslims who believe in peace. Mohammed's message changed an awful lot from when he first preaching to when he finished. Don't even get me started on how terrible Arabic is as a language to convey meaning in any way. The simple movement of a dot can change the whole meaning of a word.

Then you also have the fact that he married a 6 year old, and consumated the relationship when she was 9... Personally, I don't think anyone with a direct line to God would do that! I mean God told him how long he wants him to grow his beard but not to have sex with children? Pull the other one.

 

[YellowPolkaDotHalo]

MM im willing to give you 50%


But no brothels, pubs or assorted other Den of Iniquities on the side.. Strictly the right stuff.

 

[Mailmonkey]

How much logic is there in the fact that it is apparently untranslateable, when the bible has been translated into hundreds of languages with it's meaning still in tact? Muslims are in no way in agreement on any subject there is. There are dozens of scholars that one must talk to before coming to a conclusion on any one issue, because the Quaran and the Haddith are so easy to interpret one way or another. If you want an example you only have to look at terrorists, who decide to take the violent passages to heart, then look at the more moderate Western Muslims who believe in peace. Mohammed's message changed an awful lot from when he first preaching to when he finished. Don't even get me started on how terrible Arabic is as a language to convey meaning in any way. The simple movement of a dot can change the whole meaning of a word.

Then you also have the fact that he married a 6 year old, and consumated the relationship when she was 9... Personally, I don't think anyone with a direct line to God would do that! I mean God told him how long he wants him to grow his beard but not to have sex with children? Pull the other one.

There's no apostrophe in the possessive form of its. Intact is one word.

You cannot refute these facts.

 

[YellowPolkaDotHalo]

I think my boy presented well MM

no more than 50