Atheists: Lowest Charitable Giving

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Admittedly, the book of Mormon is very different. That does say man is saved and judged by works, but it runs contradictory to the bible.[/quote]

Not just Mormons, but Catholics and any other Christian denomination who believe both faith and good works are important.

But even looking at the grace churches, shouldn’t you love people even if you haven’t been saved? Is it more laudable to serve others out of gratitude to your god for saving you from damnation, or because you actually love people and want to help them?

[/quote]

No. Works are always important. If you have love, there will be works. If there are no works, there is no love.

BUT there can be works with no love. Hence, works don’t get you anything. Doing works doesn’t get you anything. The love that causes them is rewarded.

You are claiming Christians do works because that gets them in heaven, when the bible clearly states the opposite.

42

[quote]pat wrote:
The article doesn’t say why. But I can render a very simple guess that religious people are called to do it and since atheists have no authority above themselves, they are not.
[/quote]

Moral obligation. This shouldn’t even be contested. Just as New Atheism has become uncomfortable with ‘good,’ and ‘evil,’ it must reject the idea of moral obligations which exist outside of preferences. A Christian is obligated and views society as obligated. An uncharitable Christian has failed, morally. An uncharitable atheist has made a lifestyle choice.

43

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Admittedly, the book of Mormon is very different. That does say man is saved and judged by works, but it runs contradictory to the bible.[/quote]

Not just Mormons, but Catholics and any other Christian denomination who believe both faith and good works are important.

But even looking at the grace churches, shouldn’t you love people even if you haven’t been saved? Is it more laudable to serve others out of gratitude to your god for saving you from damnation, or because you actually love people and want to help them?

[/quote]

No. Works are always important. If you have love, there will be works. If there are no works, there is no love.

BUT there can be works with no love. Hence, works don’t get you anything. Doing works doesn’t get you anything. The love that causes them is rewarded.

You are claiming Christians do works because that gets them in heaven, when the bible clearly states the opposite.[/quote]

Clearly, you’re a sola fide flavored Christian. Again, my point is
that other Christians read the bible and believe differently than you
do.

Also, even for the sola fide Christians, I believe it is more laudable
to help people solely for the sake of helping them, rather than out of
gratitude born from the belief that your god has saved you from hell.

[quote]Sola fide (Latin: by faith alone), also historically known as
the doctrine of justification by faith alone, is a Christian
theological doctrine that distinguishes most Protestant denominations
from Catholicism, Eastern Christianity, and some in the Restoration
Movement.

The doctrine of sola fide or “by faith alone” asserts God’s pardon for
guilty sinners is granted to and received through faith, conceived as
excluding all “works”, alone. All humanity, it is asserted, is fallen
and sinful, under the curse of God, and incapable of saving itself
from God’s wrath and curse. But God, on the basis of the life, death,
and resurrection of his Son, Jesus Christ alone (solus Christus),
grants sinners judicial pardon, or justification, which is received
solely through faith. Faith is seen as passive, merely receiving
Christ and all his benefits, among which benefits are the active and
passive righteousness of Jesus Christ. Christ’s righteousness,
according to the followers of “sola fide”, is imputed (or attributed)
by God to the believing sinner (as opposed to infused or imparted), so
that the divine verdict and pardon of the believing sinner is based
not upon anything in the sinner, nor even faith itself, but upon Jesus
Christ and his righteousness alone, which are received through faith
alone. Justification is by faith alone and is distinguished from the
other graces of salvation. See the Protestant ordo salutis for more
detail on the doctrine of salvation considered more broadly than
justification by faith alone.

Historic Protestantism (both Lutheran and Reformed) has held to
sola-fide justification in opposition to Roman Catholicism especially,
but also in opposition to significant aspects of Eastern Orthodoxy.
Protestants exclude all human works (except the works of Jesus Christ,
which form the basis of justification) from the legal verdict / pardon
of justification. Thus, “faith alone” is foundational to
Protestantism, and distinguishes it from other Christian
denominations. According to Martin Luther, justification by faith
alone is the article on which the church stands or falls.[/quote]

44

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Admittedly, the book of Mormon is very different. That does say man is saved and judged by works, but it runs contradictory to the bible.[/quote]

Not just Mormons, but Catholics and any other Christian denomination who believe both faith and good works are important.

But even looking at the grace churches, shouldn’t you love people even if you haven’t been saved? Is it more laudable to serve others out of gratitude to your god for saving you from damnation, or because you actually love people and want to help them?

[/quote]

No. Works are always important. If you have love, there will be works. If there are no works, there is no love.

BUT there can be works with no love. Hence, works don’t get you anything. Doing works doesn’t get you anything. The love that causes them is rewarded.

You are claiming Christians do works because that gets them in heaven, when the bible clearly states the opposite.[/quote]

Clearly, you’re a sola fide flavored Christian. Again, my point is
that other Christians read the bible and believe differently than you
do.

Also, even for the sola fide Christians, I believe it is more laudable
to help people solely for the sake of helping them, rather than out of
gratitude born from the belief that your god has saved you from hell.

[quote]Sola fide (Latin: by faith alone), also historically known as
the doctrine of justification by faith alone, is a Christian
theological doctrine that distinguishes most Protestant denominations
from Catholicism, Eastern Christianity, and some in the Restoration
Movement.

The doctrine of sola fide or “by faith alone” asserts God’s pardon for
guilty sinners is granted to and received through faith, conceived as
excluding all “works”, alone. All humanity, it is asserted, is fallen
and sinful, under the curse of God, and incapable of saving itself
from God’s wrath and curse. But God, on the basis of the life, death,
and resurrection of his Son, Jesus Christ alone (solus Christus),
grants sinners judicial pardon, or justification, which is received
solely through faith. Faith is seen as passive, merely receiving
Christ and all his benefits, among which benefits are the active and
passive righteousness of Jesus Christ. Christ’s righteousness,
according to the followers of “sola fide”, is imputed (or attributed)
by God to the believing sinner (as opposed to infused or imparted), so
that the divine verdict and pardon of the believing sinner is based
not upon anything in the sinner, nor even faith itself, but upon Jesus
Christ and his righteousness alone, which are received through faith
alone. Justification is by faith alone and is distinguished from the
other graces of salvation. See the Protestant ordo salutis for more
detail on the doctrine of salvation considered more broadly than
justification by faith alone.

Historic Protestantism (both Lutheran and Reformed) has held to
sola-fide justification in opposition to Roman Catholicism especially,
but also in opposition to significant aspects of Eastern Orthodoxy.
Protestants exclude all human works (except the works of Jesus Christ,
which form the basis of justification) from the legal verdict / pardon
of justification. Thus, “faith alone” is foundational to
Protestantism, and distinguishes it from other Christian
denominations. According to Martin Luther, justification by faith
alone is the article on which the church stands or falls.[/quote]
[/quote]

No, I’m not. I just read the Bible. And as I’ve stated, you have to do works to get into heaven. BUT as I’ve shown and explained, works don’t get you in.

45

[quote]forlife wrote:
Far be it from me to make sweeping assumptions about people based on
their beliefs (or the lack thereof), but in the spirit of this thread:

Matthew 6:

[quote]1-4: Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before
men, to be seen by them. � Otherwise you have no reward from your
Father in heaven. � Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not
sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and
in the streets, that they may have glory from men. � Assuredly, I say
to you, they have their reward. � But when you do a charitable deed, do
not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your
charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret
will Himself reward you openly.

19-20: Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and
rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for
yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys
and where thieves do not break in and steal.? [/quote]

I’ve always thought that true charity is about giving to someone
without thought of reward. How laudable is it to spend your time and
money helping someone if you believe a supernatural being is going to
send you to hell for not doing so, but promises to give you eternal
riches if you do? That belief cheapens the act, revealing it to be no
more than a selfish personal investment.

Atheists might give less on average than believers, but those that do
give are more likely to do so for the right reasons, because they
actually want to help people, and not because they think a god is
going to bless them for it.

My partner is currently on a medical mission in Kenya. He told me
yesterday about the nightly devotionals the other doctors have, and
how they rejoice in all the poor souls that have accepted Jesus due to
the medical services provided to them. I’m proud of him for serving
the mission solely because he wants to help out, and not because he
thinks doing so would bring him eternal blessings.

Some believers would still give even if their god didn?t command it,
and some atheists would never give because they simply don?t care
about other people. And of course, setting motivation aside, the
bottom line is that people still benefit from the giving, irrespective
of the motivation for the gift. I don’t think the African children
whose lives are saved from this medical mission really care why they
were brought 400 pounds of medicine and 300 pairs of shoes. In the
end, they benefit, and that is a good thing.[/quote]

Hey welcome back FL! Good to see you, hope all is well.

46

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The article doesn’t say why. But I can render a very simple guess that religious people are called to do it and since atheists have no authority above themselves, they are not.
[/quote]

Moral obligation. This shouldn’t even be contested. Just as New Atheism has become uncomfortable with ‘good,’ and ‘evil,’ it must reject the idea of moral obligations which exist outside of preferences. A Christian is obligated and views society as obligated. An uncharitable Christian has failed, morally. An uncharitable atheist has made a lifestyle choice.
[/quote]

Good take. I would say the religious view is what are my obligations and responsibilities and the atheist view is what are my rights and privileges.

47

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Admittedly, the book of Mormon is very different. That does say man is saved and judged by works, but it runs contradictory to the bible.[/quote]

Not just Mormons, but Catholics and any other Christian denomination who believe both faith and good works are important.

But even looking at the grace churches, shouldn’t you love people even if you haven’t been saved? Is it more laudable to serve others out of gratitude to your god for saving you from damnation, or because you actually love people and want to help them?

[/quote]

No. Works are always important. If you have love, there will be works. If there are no works, there is no love.

BUT there can be works with no love. Hence, works don’t get you anything. Doing works doesn’t get you anything. The love that causes them is rewarded.

You are claiming Christians do works because that gets them in heaven, when the bible clearly states the opposite.[/quote]

Clearly, you’re a sola fide flavored Christian. Again, my point is
that other Christians read the bible and believe differently than you
do.

Also, even for the sola fide Christians, I believe it is more laudable
to help people solely for the sake of helping them, rather than out of
gratitude born from the belief that your god has saved you from hell.

[quote]Sola fide (Latin: by faith alone), also historically known as
the doctrine of justification by faith alone, is a Christian
theological doctrine that distinguishes most Protestant denominations
from Catholicism, Eastern Christianity, and some in the Restoration
Movement.

The doctrine of sola fide or “by faith alone” asserts God’s pardon for
guilty sinners is granted to and received through faith, conceived as
excluding all “works”, alone. All humanity, it is asserted, is fallen
and sinful, under the curse of God, and incapable of saving itself
from God’s wrath and curse. But God, on the basis of the life, death,
and resurrection of his Son, Jesus Christ alone (solus Christus),
grants sinners judicial pardon, or justification, which is received
solely through faith. Faith is seen as passive, merely receiving
Christ and all his benefits, among which benefits are the active and
passive righteousness of Jesus Christ. Christ’s righteousness,
according to the followers of “sola fide”, is imputed (or attributed)
by God to the believing sinner (as opposed to infused or imparted), so
that the divine verdict and pardon of the believing sinner is based
not upon anything in the sinner, nor even faith itself, but upon Jesus
Christ and his righteousness alone, which are received through faith
alone. Justification is by faith alone and is distinguished from the
other graces of salvation. See the Protestant ordo salutis for more
detail on the doctrine of salvation considered more broadly than
justification by faith alone.

Historic Protestantism (both Lutheran and Reformed) has held to
sola-fide justification in opposition to Roman Catholicism especially,
but also in opposition to significant aspects of Eastern Orthodoxy.
Protestants exclude all human works (except the works of Jesus Christ,
which form the basis of justification) from the legal verdict / pardon
of justification. Thus, “faith alone” is foundational to
Protestantism, and distinguishes it from other Christian
denominations. According to Martin Luther, justification by faith
alone is the article on which the church stands or falls.[/quote]
[/quote]

No, I’m not. I just read the Bible. And as I’ve stated, you have to do works to get into heaven. BUT as I’ve shown and explained, works don’t get you in.[/quote]

Apparently, you believe that anyone who disagrees with your sola fide interpretation isn’t a true Christian. That’s your right, but please don’t assume I’m “misrepresenting Christianity”, in light of the fact that millions of Christians disagree with your interpretation.

And for the third time, my observation applies even to sola fide Christians, because in my view it is better to serve others for the sake of the act itself, rather than out of gratitude to your god for saving you.

Thanks Pat, still busy but had a little breathing room this afternoon :slight_smile:

48

[quote]forlife wrote:

Apparently, you believe that anyone who disagrees with your sola fide interpretation isn’t a true Christian. That’s your right, but please don’t assume I’m “misrepresenting Christianity”, in light of the fact that millions of Christians disagree with your interpretation.

And for the third time, my observation applies even to sola fide Christians, because in my view it is better to serve others for the sake of the act itself, rather than out of gratitude to your god for saving you.

Thanks Pat, still busy but had a little breathing room this afternoon :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Not me, the very clear and explicit verses I quoted.

And nothing is every anything of itself. The act alone is just that, a physical thing. It takes something else to call it good.

49

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Apparently, you believe that anyone who disagrees with your sola fide interpretation isn’t a true Christian. That’s your right, but please don’t assume I’m “misrepresenting Christianity”, in light of the fact that millions of Christians disagree with your interpretation.

And for the third time, my observation applies even to sola fide Christians, because in my view it is better to serve others for the sake of the act itself, rather than out of gratitude to your god for saving you.

Thanks Pat, still busy but had a little breathing room this afternoon :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Not me, the very clear and explicit verses I quoted.

And nothing is every anything of itself. The act alone is just that, a physical thing. It takes something else to call it good.
[/quote]

As opposed to the very clear and explicit verses in James 2, you mean? :wink:

Never mind, the discussion is getting off track.

As I said in my first post, clearly there are Christians who serve others because they actually love them, aside from any religious beliefs they may have. And even those whose acts of service are primarily motivated by their religious beliefs still accomplish a great deal of good in the world.

50

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The article doesn’t say why. But I can render a very simple guess that religious people are called to do it and since atheists have no authority above themselves, they are not.
[/quote]

Moral obligation. This shouldn’t even be contested. Just as New Atheism has become uncomfortable with ‘good,’ and ‘evil,’ it must reject the idea of moral obligations which exist outside of preferences. A Christian is obligated and views society as obligated. An uncharitable Christian has failed, morally. An uncharitable atheist has made a lifestyle choice.
[/quote]

Good take. I would say the religious view is what are my obligations and responsibilities and the atheist view is what are my rights and privileges.[/quote]

Not just rights and privileges, but values. Even atheists can value honesty, courage, and love, without believing they derive from a supernatural being.

51

[quote]pat wrote:

Good take. I would say the religious view is what are my obligations and responsibilities and the atheist view is what are my rights and privileges.[/quote]

Yeah. But in the realm of rights, even that wonderful phrase “inalienable rights” must go, too. So rights exist as nothing more than the preferences that are able to be enforced, in a given geography, at a given time. Inalienable rights exist above preference, and must be respected out of moral duty/obligation.

52

[quote]Cortes wrote:
No surprise here…

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/05/06/do-atheists-care-less/

They also volunteer more, donate more blood, offer more help to the jobless and homeless, and are more likely to cheer up when you’re blue.

In atheist’s defense, they still hold the top positions in the music, movie and gambling industries.

(And before anyone starts getting all “righteous” on me, see here: Bible Belt: HIghest Divorce Rate - Politics and World Issues - Forums - T Nation )[/quote]

Just wanted to drop by and say that I do consider this a problem. I’ve watched friends reject their religions and turn into very different, honestly many times more selfish, people.

The problem is, more and more people are becoming atheists. This trend is never going to reverse, no matter how much you pray and hope. Some of your kids will turn into atheists, some of your friends kids will turn, etc. What is the solution here? What do atheists need to hear, after they have decided that you lied to the, to let them know that you were right about the giving part?

53

I failed to read every post, just glanced over most of them.

My reasons for donating blood, doing things for charity and things of that nature used to be because I thought I should do it or God would be disappointed and upset.

I left God and came back a number of years later!

I do things now, simply because other people need help. Not one person on this planet can do their jobs without needing help from others. In fact, Christ needs help everyday, just as I need his help every single day!

My .02

54

Probably true but wanted to add…

A lot of what church’s have is great organization of people. When I was in high school and university I would give blood every year on the annual blood drive day. 2 years out of university I haven’t given blood. Why? Because I’m not chronically reminded to do it and they aren’t coming to a place I attend regularly.

But this thread has reminded me I should get off my ass and start giving blood again.

55

I also passed the links in the OP to one of my atheists friends in the States and they sent me back this:

“Christians–especially conservative Christians–tend to be anti-social welfare, whereas a lot of atheists are more socially liberal. So, Christians (who lean conservative) go more for private charity, but fight to deny people things like unemployment benefits, low cost or free medical services, homeless shelters, etc. I’ve seen letters to the editor where they actually argue that if the government forces them to fund these things through tax deductions, then it’s not really “charity.” In my view, this is doing it the hard way–because society is best suited to see to its own social needs, and leaving hungry, medically needy or desperate people to the mercy of–well, “mercy,” is not acceptable. They should be guaranteed services, not simply at the mercy of whatever someone does (or does not) wish to give.”

56

[quote]ironcross wrote:
What do atheists need to hear, after they have decided that you lied to the, to let them know that you were right about the giving part?
[/quote]

“While giving blood isn’t a moral good, you should give blood because we want others to give blood. It’s a social contract.”

“Are you saying that if I choose not to follow the contract, but only benefit from the contract, cosmic karma will make sure that the vast majority of people–people who don’t even know of me–will not give blood that I could use?”

Meh, I tried.

57

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
I failed to read every post, just glanced over most of them.

My reasons for donating blood, doing things for charity and things of that nature used to be because I thought I should do it or God would be disappointed and upset.

I left God and came back a number of years later!

I do things now, simply because other people need help. Not one person on this planet can do their jobs without needing help from others. In fact, Christ needs help everyday, just as I need his help every single day!

My .02[/quote]

Did the wreck have anything to do with it?

58

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I also passed the links in the OP to one of my atheists friends in the States and they sent me back this:

“Christians–especially conservative Christians–tend to be anti-social welfare, whereas a lot of atheists are more socially liberal. So, Christians (who lean conservative) go more for private charity, but fight to deny people things like unemployment benefits, low cost or free medical services, homeless shelters, etc. I’ve seen letters to the editor where they actually argue that if the government forces them to fund these things through tax deductions, then it’s not really “charity.” In my view, this is doing it the hard way–because society is best suited to see to its own social needs, and leaving hungry, medically needy or desperate people to the mercy of–well, “mercy,” is not acceptable. They should be guaranteed services, not simply at the mercy of whatever someone does (or does not) wish to give.”[/quote]

Using an tremendously inefficient government is somehow better than much more efficient charitable organizations? Riddle me that…

I think it’s more laziness and a passing of the buck. They recognize the problem, but rather let somebody else deal with it and somehow absurdly justifying paying more taxes.
We, more socially conservative folks do realize that giving people money on a tether keeps them poor and miserable. Programs designed to help, are in turn rife with corruption, inefficient on a good day, and string people along on fixed incomes tacitly controlling everything about their very lives.
I fail to see to good in that.

59

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I also passed the links in the OP to one of my atheists friends in the States and they sent me back this:

“Christians–especially conservative Christians–tend to be anti-social welfare, whereas a lot of atheists are more socially liberal. So, Christians (who lean conservative) go more for private charity, but fight to deny people things like unemployment benefits, low cost or free medical services, homeless shelters, etc. I’ve seen letters to the editor where they actually argue that if the government forces them to fund these things through tax deductions, then it’s not really “charity.” In my view, this is doing it the hard way–because society is best suited to see to its own social needs, and leaving hungry, medically needy or desperate people to the mercy of–well, “mercy,” is not acceptable. They should be guaranteed services, not simply at the mercy of whatever someone does (or does not) wish to give.”[/quote]

Using an tremendously inefficient government is somehow better than much more efficient charitable organizations? Riddle me that…

I think it’s more laziness and a passing of the buck. They recognize the problem, but rather let somebody else deal with it and somehow absurdly justifying paying more taxes.
We, more socially conservative folks do realize that giving people money on a tether keeps them poor and miserable. Programs designed to help, are in turn rife with corruption, inefficient on a good day, and string people along on fixed incomes tacitly controlling everything about their very lives.
I fail to see to good in that.[/quote]

Well a lot of what you said is true about Charitable organizations as well. How many times have you read about charitable donations being embezzled or horribly mismanaged? I’m sure at least a few times if you keep your eyes open for this kind of stuff.

I just googled corrupt charities and on the very first result I found this:

“At one time, the American Cancer Society spent only 26 percent of its national multibillion-dollar budget on actual medical research, allotting the other three-fourths to â??operating expenses.â?? In 2005, the Phoenix New Times reported that the Arizona branch of the organization spent a gasp-inducing 95 percent on overhead costs, leaving cancer victims â??only the crumbs.â?? At the Arizona branch, the nonprofit spends 22 times as much on paying employees, maintaining the offices, and keeping the coffee machine running than on the cancer victims they are supposedly aiming to save.”

This is from a Harvard affiliated website btw.

60

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I also passed the links in the OP to one of my atheists friends in the States and they sent me back this:

“Christians–especially conservative Christians–tend to be anti-social welfare, whereas a lot of atheists are more socially liberal. So, Christians (who lean conservative) go more for private charity, but fight to deny people things like unemployment benefits, low cost or free medical services, homeless shelters, etc. I’ve seen letters to the editor where they actually argue that if the government forces them to fund these things through tax deductions, then it’s not really “charity.” In my view, this is doing it the hard way–because society is best suited to see to its own social needs, and leaving hungry, medically needy or desperate people to the mercy of–well, “mercy,” is not acceptable. They should be guaranteed services, not simply at the mercy of whatever someone does (or does not) wish to give.”[/quote]

Using an tremendously inefficient government is somehow better than much more efficient charitable organizations? Riddle me that…

I think it’s more laziness and a passing of the buck. They recognize the problem, but rather let somebody else deal with it and somehow absurdly justifying paying more taxes.
We, more socially conservative folks do realize that giving people money on a tether keeps them poor and miserable. Programs designed to help, are in turn rife with corruption, inefficient on a good day, and string people along on fixed incomes tacitly controlling everything about their very lives.
I fail to see to good in that.[/quote]

Well a lot of what you said is true about Charitable organizations as well. How many times have you read about charitable donations being embezzled or horribly mismanaged? I’m sure at least a few times if you keep your eyes open for this kind of stuff.

I just googled corrupt charities and on the very first result I found this:

“At one time, the American Cancer Society spent only 26 percent of its national multibillion-dollar budget on actual medical research, allotting the other three-fourths to Ã?¢??operating expenses.Ã?¢?? In 2005, the Phoenix New Times reported that the Arizona branch of the organization spent a gasp-inducing 95 percent on overhead costs, leaving cancer victims Ã?¢??only the crumbs.Ã?¢?? At the Arizona branch, the nonprofit spends 22 times as much on paying employees, maintaining the offices, and keeping the coffee machine running than on the cancer victims they are supposedly aiming to save.”

This is from a Harvard affiliated website btw.[/quote]

Look at there inefficiencies in general vs. the government. Yes, some do take a rogue turn now and then, but over all there is a lot less waste in privately run charities.
You can see their grades here:

Then:
http://libertariananswers.com/is-private-charity-more-efficient-than-government-welfare/