Why Don't Atheists Contribute To Society?

[Carla_Danger]

Here are the sources. Which of these do you maintain isn't *reliable*..and why?:

1. ↑ Atheists and Agnostics Take Aim at Christians The Barna Update, 2007.
2. ↑ Religious people make better citizens, study says by Pew Research Forum, May 13, 2009
3. ↑ Religious people are 'better neighbors' by USA Today, 11/14/2010
4. ↑ Religious people make better citizens, study says by Pew Research Forum, May 13, 2009
5. ↑ Religious people are 'better neighbors' by USA Today, 11/14/2010
6. ↑ Religious people make better citizens, study says by Pew Research Forum, May 13, 2009
7. ↑ Religious people are 'better neighbors' by USA Today, 11/14/2010
8. ↑ Brooks, Arthur C., faith and charitable giving Policy Review, Oct-Dec 2003, p.2.
9. ↑ Stossel, John and Kendall, Kristina Who Gives and Who Doesn't? ABC News, November 28, 2006
10. ↑ Religious people make better citizens, study says by Pew Research Forum, May 13, 2009
11. ↑ Religious people are 'better neighbors' by USA Today, 11/14/2010
12. ↑ Religious people make better citizens, study says by Pew Research Forum, May 13, 2009
13. ↑ Religious people are 'better neighbors' by USA Today, 11/14/2010
14. ↑ Religious people make better citizens, study says by Pew Research Forum, May 13, 2009
15. ↑ Religious people are 'better neighbors' by USA Today, 11/14/2010
16. ↑ Review of Key Studies on Caring Volunteering Pursuit of Happiness Happiness is understandable obtainable and teachable

Do you distrust USA today? Pew Research forum? Arthur Brooks, ABC News?

Atheism and charity - Conservapedia

LOL, what a load of dog poo.

 

[koshergrl]

So you disagree with which source?

 

[the_human_being]

When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, Christian churches gathered up water and toiletries and other basic human needs and handed out to the storm victims. When Ivan hit, they did the same thing. It has happened over and over whenever their has been a natural disaster. Even individual families who have fell victim to home fires, floods, etc., have been helped by the Church.

Where are the atheists in all this?

I'm sure many helped.

The more important question is why are you condemning atheists and why are you preaching?

There's no preaching there zealot. It is merely a statement of fact.

 

[koshergrl]

This is how the uneducated progressive argues:

Pretend the facts aren't really there. Insist on an alternate reality. Refuse to engage.

 

[Wake]

Of course it's a good source, because it SOURCES its articles. The intellectually dishonest don't like the fact that their sourcing quite adamantly makes their point, and so they claim that it's not a reliable source.

Laughable. Which of the sources in the article do you contend isn't true?

I said Conservapedia isn't credible, because it's biased. If there were a Liberapedia I'd say the same thing.

 

[koshergrl]

Ok, so I'll just quote the sources:

"One of the most significant differences between active-faith and no-faith Americans is the cultural disengagement and sense of independence exhibited by atheists and agnostics in many areas of life. They are less likely than active-faith Americans to be registered to vote (78% versus 89%), to volunteer to help a non-church-related non-profit (20% versus 30%), to describe themselves as "active in the community" (41% versus 68%), and to personally help or serve a homeless or poor person (41% versus 61%). They are also more likely to be registered to vote as an independent or with a non-mainstream political party."

Atheists and Agnostics Take Aim at Christians - Barna Group

 

[Avatar4321]

When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, Christian churches gathered up water and toiletries and other basic human needs and handed out to the storm victims. When Ivan hit, they did the same thing. It has happened over and over whenever their has been a natural disaster. Even individual families who have fell victim to home fires, floods, etc., have been helped by the Church.

Where are the atheists in all this?

I'm sure many helped.

The more important question is why are you condemning atheists and why are you preaching?

There's no preaching there zealot. It is merely a statement of fact.

You really need to look up the word preach.

However, even by your own definition you are preaching. You equate preaching for condemning others. You are condemning atheists for not giving. By your own definition, you are preaching.

Like I said elsewhere, you need to get that redwood out of your eye.

 

[koshergrl]

Of course it's a good source, because it SOURCES its articles. The intellectually dishonest don't like the fact that their sourcing quite adamantly makes their point, and so they claim that it's not a reliable source.

Laughable. Which of the sources in the article do you contend isn't true?

I said Conservapedia isn't credible, because it's biased. If there were a Liberapedia I'd say the same thing.

Being *biased* doesn't lend itself automatically to being non-credible. The two aren't one and the same thing.

These are the nuances of journalism and writing that I wish people actually understood before they pipe up.

 

[koshergrl]

Dictionaries. And Concordances, ppl. They are marvelous things.

Oh and while you're at it, an APA style manual, if you're going to prate about what is considered "credible" and sourcing and such.

 

[koshergrl]

"Well, while middle-income Americans are generous compared to people in other countries, compared to the rich and the working poor, they give less. "The two most generous groups in America are the rich and the working poor," says Brooks. "The middle class give the least."

"The Church Connection
"Finally, the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation.

"Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:

"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities."

Page 2 Who Gives and Who Doesn t - ABC News

Is ABC a credible source?

 

[alang1216]

"Christians don't give more than atheists when we don't count what Christians give". No kidding!
Beautiful. Perfect.

Are you saying that everything Christians give to their Church should be considered charity?

If it's charity, yup.

My church every week has collections for various and assorted things. We set goals, and we collect in the church to meet those goals, and then the money goes to whatever need we've identified. We have collections for missionaries who live, for example, in the Ukraine, and China, and Indonesia, and India...we have collections for medical ventures. We have collections for individuals, and for organizations that help certain people (for example, we have collections regularly for the food pantry and pro-life pregnancy services, that provide everything from housing to clothing to food to furniture for pregnant women and their children). Yeah, that counts as charity.

Of course it is. I get a statement from my Church each year detailing how much I contributed to use when I file my income tax return. That's been a charitable deduction as long as I can remember.

True, our tax code allows deductions given to religious organizations, not in dispute. What I do dispute is whether the salary of the church maintenance man or the amount of oil used to heat the building is really charity.

I agree with almost all the examples cited by koshergrl but take issue with missionaries being charity. You may believe it is helping others by spreading the faith but I don't agree. They may have other duties that I would consider charity but not spreading their faith.

 

[the_human_being]

When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, Christian churches gathered up water and toiletries and other basic human needs and handed out to the storm victims. When Ivan hit, they did the same thing. It has happened over and over whenever their has been a natural disaster. Even individual families who have fell victim to home fires, floods, etc., have been helped by the Church.

Where are the atheists in all this?

I'm sure many helped.

The more important question is why are you condemning atheists and why are you preaching?

There's no preaching there zealot. It is merely a statement of fact.

You really need to look up the word preach.

However, even by your own definition you are preaching. You equate preaching for condemning others. You are condemning atheists for not giving. By your own definition, you are preaching.

Like I said elsewhere, you need to get that redwood out of your eye.

I made a statement. I never condemned any atheist for not giving. Not only do you condemn, you lie.

 

[koshergrl]

The contributions that go towards the maintenance of the churches and the salary of the employees is a drop in the bucket. And missionaries are definitely charity. We send goods, supplies, and we sponsor entire families through our missionaries...not only sponsor them there in whatever locale they are...but we also sponsor them when it comes to getting educations AND moving to the US. Many of the missionaries have medical degrees and work in church-funded HOSPITALS distributing church-purchased MEDICATIONS and treatments in places that you will find almost exactly NOBODY of the secular world imbedded. We go to places where Christians are killed, and we teach children (and adults) to read, we bring in support that our government can't even get in. And our missionaries do this at risk of being killed (and they often are killed).

I suggest you don't really understand what mission work is about.

 

[the_human_being]

The contributions that go towards the maintenance of the churches and the salary of the employees is a drop in the bucket. And missionaries are definitely charity. We send goods, supplies, and we sponsor entire families through our missionaries...not only sponsor them there in whatever locale they are...but we also sponsor them when it comes to getting educations AND moving to the US. Many of the missionaries have medical degrees and work in church-funded HOSPITALS distributing church-purchased MEDICATIONS and treatments in places that you will find almost exactly NOBODY of the secular world imbedded. We go to places where Christians are killed, and we teach children (and adults) to read, we bring in support that our government can't even get in. And our missionaries do this at risk of being killed (and they often are killed).

I suggest you don't really understand what mission work is about.

I'd help out but you're knocking it out of the park all by yourself.

 

[the_human_being]

Guys, throw in the towel. Koshergrl has totally kicked your butts here. She has totally destroyed any and all defenses you thought you had. You have lost the argument and lost BIG.

 

[alang1216]

The contributions that go towards the maintenance of the churches and the salary of the employees is a drop in the bucket. And missionaries are definitely charity. We send goods, supplies, and we sponsor entire families through our missionaries...not only sponsor them there in whatever locale they are...but we also sponsor them when it comes to getting educations AND moving to the US. Many of the missionaries have medical degrees and work in church-funded HOSPITALS distributing church-purchased MEDICATIONS and treatments in places that you will find almost exactly NOBODY of the secular world imbedded. We go to places where Christians are killed, and we teach children (and adults) to read, we bring in support that our government can't even get in. And our missionaries do this at risk of being killed (and they often are killed).

I suggest you don't really understand what mission work is about.

I don't know how representative your church is but what percentage of the bucket is that drop? I've seen some of the most beautiful art and architecture in the cathedrals of Europe.

As to missionaries, again I don't know how representative your church is but I have had my bell rung by proselytizing Mormon missionaries. I don't consider myself a charity case.

Some churches don't seem to follow your example:

We have Pastor Steven Furtick from Elevation Church who just built a multimillion dollar mansion.
Jan Crouch from TBN who has a 50 Million dollar jet, 13 mansions, and a $100,000 mobile home for her dogs.
We have fear-peddlers such as John Hagee who was reported to be making over $1 Million a year before making his salary secret, guys like Kenneth Copeland who have their own fleet of jets, and folks like Ed Young who receives a $240,ooo PER YEAR housing allowance in addition to a $1 Million dollar salary.

 

[Avatar4321]

When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, Christian churches gathered up water and toiletries and other basic human needs and handed out to the storm victims. When Ivan hit, they did the same thing. It has happened over and over whenever their has been a natural disaster. Even individual families who have fell victim to home fires, floods, etc., have been helped by the Church.

Where are the atheists in all this?

I'm sure many helped.

The more important question is why are you condemning atheists and why are you preaching?

There's no preaching there zealot. It is merely a statement of fact.

You really need to look up the word preach.

However, even by your own definition you are preaching. You equate preaching for condemning others. You are condemning atheists for not giving. By your own definition, you are preaching.

Like I said elsewhere, you need to get that redwood out of your eye.

I made a statement. I never condemned any atheist for not giving. Not only do you condemn, you lie.

Right, you haven't condemned anyone.

I am not a liar simply because you are.

 

[Wake]

I made a statement. I never condemned any atheist for not giving. Not only do you condemn, you lie.

You're making it sound as if all atheists don't contribute to society, which is a ridiculous insinuation. You say you never condemned any atheist for not giving... but you go ahead and say none of them contribute to society. That is crazy. Insane.

 

[the_human_being]

I made a statement. I never condemned any atheist for not giving. Not only do you condemn, you lie.

You're making it sound as if all atheists don't contribute to society, which is a ridiculous insinuation. You say you never condemned any atheist for not giving... but you go ahead and say none of them contribute to society. That is crazy. Insane.

I was proven wrong. I admit it. I believe we had a total of three who claimed they did.

 

[rdean]

If those Christians could have helped only other Christians, they would have.