Na'vi
Bluelighter
Oops, sorry! Must have missed that, I should have got in here earlier.
Is 'no faith' the same as 'atheist' ? I'm not sure it is. Also your source is the Bana Group; 'The Barna Group is an evangelical Christian polling firm based in Ventura, California.' Possibly biased?
Here are a few links to Christian/religious charitible giving
Which charities are they giving to tho? Charities that furthur the spread of their religion and support the church? That's not quite the same thing.
I think the question should be more about whether christians contribute more to secular charities like the RSPCA than non-christians. That would give you a better idea of whether they are giving for givings sake or giving because it's supporting their church.
It would be interesting to know which charities were being given to, because a LOT of churches, especially in the US, are registered charities and strongly encourage their members to tithe a certain amount of their income to the church itself, which then goes on church expenses, which in some cases include enormous advertising budgets and in very extreme cases allows the pastors to live a life of opulent luxury.
I'm not disputing any of the above but as I say it would be interesting to know where the money was going.
Aha, that old chesnut. The links also state that it's giving across the board
Presumably not to charities that don't coincide with their religious beliefs tho? They won't be contributing much to "condom use in africa".
I guess the question is if there was a charity operating and everywhere they operated, instead of having a massive cross on the building, they had a massive sign saying "LEGALISE MUSHROOMS NOW" then I'd probably contribute. But would I be contributing because I'm "charitable" or because I want people to have a sign saying "LEGALISE MUSHROOMS" forced down their throat?
23-25% sounds reasonable as a margin by which coercion would influence charitable behaviour. 60 odd % of people are decent enough as is, a quarter of folk are only nice when coerced into it. The remainder are life's arseholes. I can believe that.
The question being dodged is very simple.
How do you reconcile belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, God who cares, with the stark reality that confronts you every second of every day?
How can you reconcile a world filled with appalling suffering and injustice, with the notion that there is someone watching, who is a good guy, who can help, yet never, ever does? He could fix everything with a snap of his fingers, but doesn't.
If you believe he exists, how do you reach a conclusion where he is anything other than a massive sadistic wanker?
No faith and atheist are put in the same bracket as those who do not regularly attend church.
This is the problem i have with the study. You can't say 'christians give more to charity than atheists' using statistics that lump atheists together with 'those who do not regularly attend church'. To belong to one group you have to have arrived at a distinct philosophical position on the subject of religion whereas to belong to the other you just needn't bother going to church - the psychology is different.
Why should they give to charities that do not coincide with their religious beliefs?
Because it's not really charity if the key thing is whether or not it benefits your religion is it.
I think the Arthur C Brookes studies seperate out the different denominations of non-belief, non-attedence etc. There are plenty of these studies about.
That isn't the key thing. They give to secular charities as well.
Erm, what about the fact that when they do give they give between 4 and 7x more? That isn't simple coercion.
I am not dodging any questions. My belief is that God is indeed all of these things, but he has given us the ability to solve all of the issues we have raised and we haven't. It's like the story with the people in the storm on a boat who pray to God. A rescue boat arrives, and they send them on saying "no thanks, we're waiting for God". There is enough food to feed the planet, there is enough medicine, there's enough of everything. If God wasn't loving these issues would be unsolvable.