Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
if jesus is god cos he had no father then adam is a greater god cos he had no parents at all right .then bible hebrews 7;1 melchezeric had no parents no beginning no end so why not worship him stupid xtian human worshippers. what kind of jesus god born and died u retards worship any fairytale
it' s ridiculous that Christians cannot do anything without raising funds. god is like wall street banks. needs unlimited amounts of money. OCCUPY ALL CHURCHES!
The immoral acts of the bible will not be ignored by free thinking people today. Genocide, intolerance, the mandated murder of women and homosexuals, and the fear inducing myths of hell and rapture.
Although it is not yet obvious, some believe reason and rationality will eventually triumph over superstition and ignorance. Just as we no longer fear Poseidon, or consider literature like the Iliad and the Odyssey to be true, so too will christianity be viewed as mythology and lore by the majority
@trickpanda Taking something negative....Like a human that think people around them are evil sinners and are going to eternal hell and praying for them
turning it into something good.....like a human with an understanding of reality setting out to help people with real problems
'socio-economics' is a term oft banded around with respect to the effects of economic/educational opportunity for the individual and how it affects behaviour on a larger scale.
As I explained before it is about minimising socio-economic effects so that the effects of religion can be observed. I don't know how else to explain this to you, but gives the study more credibility not less.
For the purpose of this study, that is correct. I presume you understand the concept of such studies. You have to try to fix as many variables as possible to get a reasonable picture of the variable you want to see. The biggest potential variable in this study would be socio-economic differences, and possibly inaccurate if not non-existent relevant data collection in 3rd world territories.
You should understand all this if you have read the study.
It isn't wierd, it makes perfect sense. I'm sorry you haven't grasped why it was necessary.
I'll try again. Other nations were excluded because they would distort the results due to socio-economic differences, also, the data from a large portion of these nations is unreliable thus this would have rendered the study unusable.
If you want to observe radio waves at a certain frequency you have to filter out the noise and other frequencies. I dont know how else to help you here.
If you have a valid objection to the study then make it. But if all you are going to do is sling mud from afar, then the only person you are tainting is you.
I have demonstrated your position to be at best null and void, but all you seem to want to do is demonstrate intellectual honesty. If that is what you consider a moral position to hold then so be it. I cannot shake you from it. But anyone following this conversation will see what has gone on, regardless of subsequent rhetoric.
I'm sorry to say this but you are starting sound like you are just deliberately being a dick. You fail to understand the study, perhaps because you don't want to read it, or perhaps it's just too difficult. So in the absence of any sane reason for dissenting you seem to just want to try to taint it with some absurd suggestion of racism.
I'm sorry but your position is starting to stand out now as absurd and immoral.
I am having a hard time taking most of the stuff from fora tv seriously. Especially since they bring up religion once in a while. Not that I am against religion, it is just a complete waste of time.
man i dont know why all the arguing over christian versus atheists. extreme atheists are every bit as obnoxious as extreme christians. this video is about neither. it's about a really awesome dude that is a doing a lot of good work through structuring his philanthropic website into a social networking medium
@TheGodlessGuitarist see? look at you here being obnoxious! what the hell does that have to do with anything? i was talking about YOU atheist being annoying being you are every bit as convinced there isn't a god as a christian is convinced there is one- AND u feel the need to spread that gospel. bet u automatically assumed i'm christian. nopes. i dont follow any organised religion and i still think u're obnoxious,
Me being obnoxious? you have compared atheists to extremist Christians. Sorry but there is no comparison. There is no link between atheism and violence. I challenge you to show otherwise.
"u feel the need to spread that gospel"
The gospel of what? Please tell me what dogma I am spreading.
"you are every bit as convinced there isn't a god as a christian is convinced there is "
"i was talking about YOU atheist being annoying being you are every bit as convinced there isn't a god as a christian is convinced there is one"
Is that right? so from a brief exchange of posts on here you can tell that I am conviniced to a specific certainty and particular subject can you? And you, paint me, as being 'fundamentalist'?
@TheGodlessGuitarist why try to make the point that all atheists are better than christians (w/ your completely non-topical mention of blowing up abortion clinics). why argue w/ me at all? my original post said that extreme (i did not say fundamentalist, YOU DID) atheists are AS ANNOYING as extreme christians. and your argumentativeness and defensiveness here- bringing up subjects that have NOTHING to do with the video, PROVE my point.
@TheGodlessGuitarist your arrogance that there isn't a god is the same arrogance that christians have that their god is the only god. you sitting here trying to convert the christians is really no different than the door-to-door jehovah's witnesses interrupting atheists' days. it's self-serving pride and doesn't really accomplish anything positive. opposite of u is the kiva guy, who takes something negative (all this division) and makes it into something positive- helping the needy succeed
@TheGodlessGuitarist 1) you asked me why i called some atheists (and u) annoying 2) ur sn is 'godless', and u r backing atheism in this argument, so unless u are just being argumentative for no reason, it is pretty clear you are athiest. 3) ? 4) i never said that.
5) I re-read what i wrote and stand by it. the fact u feel the need to spread ur personal views on god/lack of god makes you arrogant. evidently you think that because you are athiest, it makes you automatically better than a christian
@TheGodlessGuitarist 1. that sentence makes no sense. 2. the general definition of atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). 3. to u, christianity is ignorance. a christian would likely be calling u ignorant. this doesnt make either one of you right. 4. me saying that the person in this video is a giver DOES NOT imply that u are not one. 5. u are just pissed i called u out. 6. "don't tell me what you think" lol, that is the best argument u have to back the fact that u arent arrogant or annoying.
@TheGodlessGuitarist if u have SO MUCH to say about your own brand of atheism, why not state it explicitly to give me a chance to talk about it?? must be fear of being picked apart the same way u must enjoy picking apart organized religions. i dont have the same joy from it, because i realise that religion brings hope and comfort to many good people all over the world, throughout all of history. something in the evolution of our brains made us want to believe in something bigger than ourselves
I dont 'enjoy' picking apart religion, it is a simple matter of ethics. One either cares or they dont. I do care.
Unfortunately the 'hope and comfort' comes at a horrendous cost to people's humanity. I understand the need, but planting taking up of fantasies in lieu of reason and evidence has done terrible damage to the world, so much so that the species may not survive another 100 years.
@TheGodlessGuitarist what you seem to fail to understand that people WANT to have faith. and if they have the ability to, why not let them?? it is the terrorists of extremists of any beliefset that do horrendous things. your wanting to tell people YOUR "truth" deals with YOUR need to make everyone else the same as you to be happy with them. i find that just as intolerant as people who try to force religion down my throat. the fact that you don't see how ARROGANT that is is my beef with you.
@trickpanda I'm not forcing anyone to do anything, however I am forced to live within rules mandated by Christians, in keeping with their faith, that are completely immoral. You obviously don't care enough to speak up, and you seem to expect me to shut up and suffer in silence. I don't think you have any grasp of ethics whatsoever.
@trickpanda Atheists are still getting used to the idea that we can speak out against religion without horrendous or even life threatening consequences...so you have to forgive us if we seem to be 'in your face' about it. Many christians are far more 'out there' about prosletysing than atheists, so cut us some slack, can you?
@SANDIEGOSPEAKS What you are saying is non sense atheists dont believe in a higher power yet they can never explain how so many things work not just the meta physical
I'm reading all the comments and for many of them I'm thinking - "you sad fuckwits".
As has been said elsewhere - they're competing against each other to *do good*, It doesn't matter who wins because the charities win, the people who need a load win, their local economies win.
As an atheist, I thoroughly enjoyed reading all the excuses Christians gave for the outcome of this charity drive. I don't think either side is more or less charitable than the other, I just think it's obvious that atheists are the majority on the internet. Not inlcuding the people that only know how to check their email and facebook.
Not surprised that Atheists are more charitable than Christians.
Christians tend to pass the responsibility onto God when it comes to caring for your fellow man....if only prayer had any real value.
Atheists accept that since God does not exist and therefore we are stuck out here in the middle of nowhere.......it's up to everybody to pitch in and see if we can muddle our way through this.
Atheists donating more than Christians on Kiva isn't a sign that Atheists are more charitable than Christians. I'm sure you know that. I suppose one could make the same argument that Atheists are so bent on proving they're right and trying to beat Christians at everything they're not donating out of moral concern, but rather to win a (symbolic) competition.
@DeityDestroyer What is your hard evidence for your claim that Atheists are more charitable than Chistians? Kiva donations are not representative of charitable giving in general. What I've read from other sources is that American Republicans give more to charity than their Democrat counterparts at the same socioeconomic level. Republicans being in general more religious than Democrats, this would be an indication (though not proof) that the opposite of what you're claiming is likely true.
I am an atheist and I am not convinced either way as to whether charitable giving is more prevailant amongst atheists. However there are a few things you should note; atheists often give to faith run charities, as I have done myself, which is most often anonymous, and which faiths are only too happy to claim credit for. Additionally atheists tend to be better educated than Christians and thus many end up in roles that are vital to the maintenance and improvement of humanity.
@TheGodlessGuitarist While I'm not atheist, it's lovely to see somebody add a good point without slagging off their opponent. This is unlike the comment that got the 2nd most 'likes'.
I believe in giving as a personal choice regardless.
Without wishing to attack you personally, I see charitable giving as an easy way to ease the conscience in lieu of real action. Most people won't even email a friend about real problems for fear of seeming too 'activist' let alone write to their politician, read up on a cause, take part in a protest or help someone directly.
Charitable giving, in my opinion is a distraction, and those waving their charity donations from the rooftops are merely advertising their superficiality.
@TheGodlessGuitarist Well stated and I couldn't agree more. That's why I fund my friend's African charity directly where he & his family have moved to, to actually make a living difference with my and other's money).
But, before you think this is me waving a flag, it ain't, I don't give just the old 10% but, over 1/2. Furthermore, My wife and I volunteer with time, organization, money and love.
I understand what you mean about real problems and seeking help. i'm ignored all the fucking time.
I'm way more impressed by the actions of you and your wife than donations. It also reminds me that I promised to go out this Christmas and help out some homeless folks. We are currently snowed in but I'll find a way.
As for being ignored, I know exactly what you mean. I am torn between anger and astonishment by that experience, but I try not to let it spill into my words with my social circle. It just alienates and reduces your impact.
@TheGodlessGuitarist We may be on opposite sides on our views of God judging by your youtube name, but it's very refreshing to read your replies.
Re: my donations. Sometimes people have amazing abilities to help people in certain ways that I can't. I don't mind giving them $. I'm just not any good in some groups as they are, esp. if abroad.
You're right, I have to temper my words.... frustrating...
@drchiodo "We may be on opposite sides on our views of God judging by your youtube name, but it's very refreshing to read your replies."
I really don't care about whether someone believes in gods or not so long as they apply themselves intelligently and with reasonable ethics. I think you'll find most atheists feel this way. Obviously on the net people interact on specific issues, e.g. clashing on religion, and that is often the only experience they have of each other. Go guitarist! ;)
"While I'm not atheist, it's lovely to see somebody add a good point without slagging off their opponent"
Like many atheists, I go through phases of being very angry at religious people. I'm a developing philosopher and philanthropist, and I do understand quite a lot about why people are the way they are. However I am also human and prone to bouts of frustration and irrationality despite my best efforts to curtail.
@TheGodlessGuitarist Well, I assume that we're talking about the kinds of charitable giving that's actually measurable, not mere speculation.
Next you bring up the level of education, which should never be an excuse for not being generous with your money. Not being generous with your time I can understand, if you work a lot. You can't argue though that your work is so important that you don't have any obligation to help others financially. That's just a bad excuse for selfish behaviour.
"charitable giving that's actually measurable, not mere speculation."
I don't know what you were trying to say here.
"you bring up the level of education, which should never be an excuse for not being generous"
I think you missed my point.
"You can't argue though that your work is so important ..."
That wasnt the point at all. The person who finds a treatment or cure for a cancer for example, helps millions without having to put their hand in their pocket.
@TheGodlessGuitarist I'm referring to an earlier comment you made yesterday, the one starting with "I am an atheist and".
If Christians actually give more voluntarily than do Atheists, comparing apples to apples (educated Christians to educated Atheists, rich to rich, poor to poor), then your argument fails, unless of course you want to argue that an educated Atheist does more good through the paid work performed than does the educated Christian, which is a claim I don't think has any merit.
"If Christians actually give more voluntarily than do Atheists...then your argument fails"
Fails where exactly? My point was that a higher proportion of atheists are likely to be working full-time in humaitarian roles which has far more benefit per person than giving money IMHO.
I agree that beneficiaries largely un-interested in motivations. I'm not sure why you even mention them, because I didn't.
@TheGodlessGuitarist So now you're switching tracks again. How do you know that Atheists are more likely to work full-time doing humanitarian work? And who is paying their (usually government) salaries?
The effects voluntary giving has on the beneficiaries is the only thing that we should be concerned about, not why people give.
Switching tracks? I know that atheist are more likely to work in full-time humanitarian roles because of studies relating religiosity vs education and intelligence. There are more than 40 studies indicating that the more religious a person the poor their educational acheivement and intellect are likely to be. You need 6 years uni and a masters degree at least to be a surgeon.
@TheGodlessGuitarist You're switching tracks and you're not even noticing it. "Educated" is not the same category as "full-time humanitarian work", whatever that means.
""Educated" is not the same category as "full-time humanitarian work","
Do you not understand the connection between education and humanitarian work? as I said before, you need a good degree to be a doctor. Seriously, I'm starting to lose patience with you now, because you are either too dumb to grasp what I am saying or too lazy to read what I am writing and think it through! Either way that is starting to make this discussion seem like a futile act on my part.
@TheGodlessGuitarist The person who works as, say, a medical doctor is not more doing full-time humaritarian work than the person who is a farmer. One is patching up people who get hurt, the other one is raising the food that keeps them alive. The major difference is that being a medical doctor requires more intellectually, and for this medical doctors are amply compensated through high pay and social status. But the work itself is in no way morally superior to that of a farmer.
PS, please supply some references to your research. I have put an example of mine up to be attacked by you. Now let's see some reliable data from you. I don't mean something that you go searching for now. I mean the data off which you have been arguing against me. The data you researched, prior to our conversation.
@TheGodlessGuitarist I do understand that you are starting to lose patience. That is often the emotional response of people who haven't really thought through their positions, when flaws in their reasoning are exposed. But, don't worry, you don't have to answer my comments.
"do understand that you are starting to lose patience. That is often the emotional response of people who haven't really thought through their positions"
@claytongault "you want to argue that an educated Atheist does more good through the paid work performed than does the educated Christian, which is a claim I don't think has any merit."
@DeityDestroyer That might be part of it, but really, most Christians don't actually conform to everything in the bible. They're just vaguely Christians who use the general God/Jesus thing but come up with their own explanations for stuff. As a result, they're not proud of being Christians and therefore don't care about proving that they will donate more. Atheists, on the other hand, generally believe in the same thing (which is nothing) and are proud of their group.
@TheGodlessGuitarist That's obviously not what I meant. There is no variation in religious views from Atheist to Atheist because they have no religious views (generally).
Sorry if it seems like I am being dumb, but I think you are going to have to be more clear about what you are trying to say so that I can understand you. Here is why; there is a great deal of variation amongst atheists in terms of their views of religion. Additionally, many atheists hold explicitly religious views. Examples include atheist Jews, Buddhists, Raliens, spiritualists, Scientologists, cultural Christians ad nauseum.
@TheGodlessGuitarist Those are all very rare example. What I was saying is Christians aren't proud of being Christians because of the variation in religious views from Christian to Christian. Therefore, they won't try to exceed the donations of atheists. Atheists on the other hand usually agree with their fellow atheists and are proud of being atheists. Am I being more clear now?
I don't think they are. There are millions of Jews, Buddhists etc all over the world. Things like spiritualism, Buddhism and Scientology are taking many people out of traditional monotheistic religions.
"Atheists on the other hand usually agree with their fellow atheists"
Getting atheists to agree in matters other than their disbelief has been likened to herding cats.
@TheGodlessGuitarist But we agree that there is no God correct? And we're both proud and open atheists. And we would love support our fellow atheists. Also, how many atheist Christians do you think there are? Jews, Buddhists, and Scientologists (ugh) aren't in question right now. It's atheists vs Christians.
"Also, how many atheist Christians do you think there are". Well Richard Dawkins describes himself as such as does a friend of mine.
"how many atheist Christians do you think there are?"
I think there is a vast number. Here is why; the last census in the UK reported approx. 73% Christian population. That is largely due to the tradition of christening a child. If you poll brits you find that more than 50% are in fact atheist. It all depends on the question being asked.
@TheGodlessGuitarist Well the can be christened or baptized or whatever, but they're not Christians if they give up their religion in favor of atheism.
I think you are missing the point. Let me put it another way, if a Nazi didn't actually believe the specific Nazi dogma of the purity of German blood, does that make him not a Nazi? The point being that a person may not hold a god belief yet still hold many of the same cultural views arising from the religion of the culture they live in.
@TheGodlessGuitarist IF THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD, THEY ARE ATHEISTS!!!!!!! Many atheists believe in Christian values, does that make them Christian? NO!!! You're Nazi example is stupid. If these Nazis don't believe in the Nazi regime, they may still be a Nazi (technically), but that doesn't mean he's going to support the Nazi regime.
don't see what the problem is, every video i watch with anything to do with science people bashing religion why don't you agree to disagree and move on
Well, who else did not need to be told that donations are not as easily obtained from a group of people taught that people are worthless scum unless part of their club, and that all suffering in this life is acceptable because of the eternal afterlife of kissing a sky man's ass?
It is no surprise in an online charity run that they would be winning. Christians donate to charity all the time, seeing as how the Catholic church is the most charitable organization in the world. In an online charity run like this, atheists would be way more competitive about something like this.
Shah is right in this video. Most of these people (including the Christians) probably are only contributing because then they can say they did. Not because they are morally concerned.
@Phantominfernox Catholics also donated a rather a massive number of paedophile priests who made their own 'donations' to little boys and girls in Ireland, and in the name of 'God' covered the whole story up for decades... bastards.
@Phantominfernox Well, the motivation behind a person's giving is really irrelevant. The important things are whether or not they give, how much they give and if they keep doing it. And, of course, how the money is used by the receiver. The act of voluntarily giving to those in need is in itself is moral, even if the giver's motivation is utterly selfish.
especially the Christians! But to be fair, they are extorted by their churches a fair amount through emotional blackmail, peer pressure and fear of hell, rather than through a genuine interest in a particular cause. Of course there are also genuinely concerned Christians, I would want to tar them all with the same brush, but even then there is a tendency to split the concern between genuine help and an opportunity to proselytise. It does illustrate superficiallity in faiths.
Good point. I had a Christian friend of mine tell me the other day that Christians are charitable because they care for their fellow man. I guess we are supposed to ignore the "If I don't do right, I will burn in Hell" aspect of the whole thing. If someone wants to be charitable, then fine, but I wish religious folks would be honest in why they do what they do. Giving in order to stay out of hell seems self-serving to me, but I guess it's better than nothing.
"Giving in order to stay out of hell seems self-serving to me"
Well, it would be unfair to say that this is the only reason Christians act or donate for causes, but when Christiians claim such things in the name of their faith then they are referring to only 2 possibilities; the promise of heaven and/or the threat of hell. Either way it is not merely for the cause.
In balance, none of us act in pure selflessness. There is always an agenda, but some agendas are more honest.
@elsquibbs You see, there are a lot of people in this world to whom it does not come naturally to be generous, who consider moral reflection to be a major waste of time. In fact, many people think only of themselves and what's in it for themselves. Understanding this, is it not a net gain for the world if these people can be convinced to be generous, if only for fear of ending up in Hell?
@claytongault "is it not a net gain for the world if these people can be convinced to be generous, if only for fear of ending up in Hell?"
That rather depends on the net effect of the belief don't you think? Millions of people believe they will go to hell if they do not follow all of the Biblical commandments, which include a great deal of unnecessary barbarism and Bronze Age ignorance.
Therefore, acts of kindness that are free of such ill-reasoned motivation have greater net gain IMHO.
@TheGodlessGuitarist The net effect of the belief that you have an obligation to help your fellow human beings is clearly positive, regardless of the underlying motivation.
The persons benefitting for a voluntary act of giving don't care about your motivations. They care about someone helping out in a very bad situation, even if that help comes for the "wrong" reasons. It's irrelevant, as long as the help comes.
The problem is not how to pursuade the good people, but the ones who don't care.
@claytongault "net effect of the belief that you have an obligation to help your fellow human beings is clearly positive"
I agree, but we were talking about more than mere obligation, we were talking about the net effect, including all of the terrible harm that arises from beliefs of divine coercion.
"persons benefitting for a voluntary act of giving don't care about your motivations."
It seems like you are trying to evade the issue of negative effects of certain kinds of motivation.
@TheGodlessGuitarist I disagree that "terrible harm" comes from believing that good deeds are rewarded and bad deeds are punished in an afterlife. Of course anything can be taken to extremes, and is in some cases, but "terrible harm" is not a logical consequence of a belief in an afterlife. In fact, I would argue that many people who hold a religious belief do so because they see the many positive effects that such beliefs can have on a person's life.
@TheGodlessGuitarist I don't think you can. You have already confused the "educated" category with the category of people doing "full-time humanitarian work", so I'm more than a bit sceptical of your ability to properly assess the results of any study.
Oooo, a challenge. OK, how about the peer reviewed article in the Journal of Religion and Society: "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies" by Gregory S. Paul?
"You have already confused the "educated" ..."
Actually I haven't. The problem here is that you are talking out of your hat and haven't ever done any actual research whereas I have.
@TheGodlessGuitarist Oh, I'm very impressed... not. You managed to produce an obviously biased article published in an online only journal (!) at a third rate university (Creighton Uni. "the largest private religious university in Nebraska"), an article where the methodology was clearly chosen to produce the desired anti-religion results. I am surprised that even such a journal would accept that sloppy article, not even written by a Ph.D. whose research is focused on paleontology, not religion.
"I am surprised that even such a journal would accept that sloppy article, not even written by a Ph.D. whose research is focused on paleontology, not religion."
Sloppy? Let's see you demonstrate it's sloppiness then.
"...whose research is focused on paleontology, not religion."
It really doesn't matter, it is an analysis of metadata. Anyone with a science Ph.D. is more than qualified to collect stats and analyse them.
@TheGodlessGuitarist We have now reached a point when you are just boring me. Sorry, but as an Atheist it's kind of sad for me to see someone bring up a clearly biased study with all kinds of methodological problems as some kind of refutation of a point made earlier, a point that isn't even addressed in the piece. It's like you're not even taking your position on the subject seriously when you do that.
A win by default is not terribly gratifying. I would be far happier to have seen it go to a sensible conclusion, even if it meant me admitting fault. :|
If you're referring to the donating on Kiva as a study one obvious problem is that most Christians are likely giving to charities that they are more familiar with.
@ivlfounder "You do see the problem with this study right?"
Actually, if you read the study, you will see why that is an important part of ensuring it's integrity. If it was done across the board, religion would get unfairly skewed. Also the reporting of data, relevant to this study, in most poor nations is done poorly if at all.
Because the study aims to keep socio-economics relatively constant across the nations included, thus avoiding the claim that any trends are as a result of socio-economics, as is frequently done by many people.
Additionally we have yet to bring into the discussion the fact that much religious oriented charitable giving does not ever reach the alleged cause. So, no matter how well meaning a donation in such cases they have a net benefit of zero, if we ignore the fact that such funds are very often appropriated, through deception and misapprehension, to very negative causes. For example the millions of dollars that go towards anti-gay compaigns or climate change denial campaigns.
@TheGodlessGuitarist Chariable giving that does not end up in the hands of those it was intended for is waste and it is a moral obligation to make sure that the money ends up in the right place. That's not even an issue where one can disagree, so lets not try to create the appearance of disagreement where there is none.
"so lets not try to create the appearance of disagreement where there is none."
I have no idea what you are trying to say. Are you telling me that the charitable giving of Muslims that ends up supporting fundamentalist terrorists has a positive benefit to humanity?
@Phantominfernox hi not true, catholisism is the richest registered charity, it could easily wipe out wipe out world poverty twice over but the church choose to spend it on murderous auntie contraception campaigns and fancy popal ceremonies !!!! if it where an aethiest charity that had that money it would go on releaving poverty,
Surprising considering how much Christians outnumber atheists. Generally I think atheist tend to be far more trusting & compassionate of their fellow man as they GENERALLY;
A. are not from the authoritative/conservative mindset that believes the 'poor' are deserving of their position
B. don't think of their fellow man or themselves as "born evil." Christians have a very untrusting & distorted view of mankind as a result of their dogma that says all humans are 'scum' needing salvation
My immediate thought is numbers. Christians outnumber atheists in the USA, UK etc. so they'd be able to donate less per head and still raise more money for charity. Then they'd have yet another bullshit argument about their "moral superiority" to atheists. Whilst it would be a good charity fundraiser I doubt it'd do much in terms of bringing people of differing faiths (or no faith) together.
Perhaps it doesn't address the fundemental issue of increasing human solidarity and compassionate decency but it certainly seems a good way of brainstorming different ideas for making a difference.
The 10 million $ doing nothing is kinda sad. That's the only sad part though.
And btw people, it's not really charity, it's financing. You get your money back, and the repay rate is close to 99%. It's charity if you accept to re-lend all the time.
This is a great idea. If you bring free market competitive principles into charity, you will definitely get more revenue for worthy causes, than just making a meek plea for money. People thrive when they are involved in competition, in nearly every other area of life, so I don't see why charity can't also benefit from this.
Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
tigersforchrist 4 days ago
I'm thinking about making a lending team called ' the men who lend to topless women'.
Ronilowich 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
peace plz check rekkitten on youtube will b shocked peace
thelebirtyangels 1 month ago
if jesus is god cos he had no father then adam is a greater god cos he had no parents at all right .then bible hebrews 7;1 melchezeric had no parents no beginning no end so why not worship him stupid xtian human worshippers. what kind of jesus god born and died u retards worship any fairytale
sajakram1 3 months ago
it' s ridiculous that Christians cannot do anything without raising funds. god is like wall street banks. needs unlimited amounts of money. OCCUPY ALL CHURCHES!
nayanmalig 3 months ago
Comment removed
KENZC62091 4 months ago
FUCK ALL THE ATHEISTS HERE!!!!!!!!!!
TheMrlowe98 5 months ago
@TheMrlowe98 is that the christian thing to say?
TeddyBakesher 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheMrlowe98 "FUCK ALL THE ATHEISTS HERE!!!!!!!!!!"
What a lovely individual you are. NOW I'm convinced of the benefits of religion! [facepalm]
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 month ago
The immoral acts of the bible will not be ignored by free thinking people today. Genocide, intolerance, the mandated murder of women and homosexuals, and the fear inducing myths of hell and rapture.
Although it is not yet obvious, some believe reason and rationality will eventually triumph over superstition and ignorance. Just as we no longer fear Poseidon, or consider literature like the Iliad and the Odyssey to be true, so too will christianity be viewed as mythology and lore by the majority
northoforacle 8 months ago 7
@trickpanda Taking something negative....Like a human that think people around them are evil sinners and are going to eternal hell and praying for them
turning it into something good.....like a human with an understanding of reality setting out to help people with real problems
shandcunt 10 months ago 5
'socio-economics' is a term oft banded around with respect to the effects of economic/educational opportunity for the individual and how it affects behaviour on a larger scale.
HTH
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist
The study is starting to sound discriminatory to me.
And not in a good way.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@ivlfounder
You'll have to explain, as I don't know what you mean.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist
There are circa 1.3 billion people in India 80% are Hindu, 16% Muslim, and 4% everything else.
To pretend like they don't exist is suspicious.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@ivlfounder
As I explained before it is about minimising socio-economic effects so that the effects of religion can be observed. I don't know how else to explain this to you, but gives the study more credibility not less.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist
So no poor countries?
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@ivlfounder
For the purpose of this study, that is correct. I presume you understand the concept of such studies. You have to try to fix as many variables as possible to get a reasonable picture of the variable you want to see. The biggest potential variable in this study would be socio-economic differences, and possibly inaccurate if not non-existent relevant data collection in 3rd world territories.
You should understand all this if you have read the study.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist
I understand a study on religion that excludes virtually all none white majority countries is weird at best.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@ivlfounder
It isn't wierd, it makes perfect sense. I'm sorry you haven't grasped why it was necessary.
I'll try again. Other nations were excluded because they would distort the results due to socio-economic differences, also, the data from a large portion of these nations is unreliable thus this would have rendered the study unusable.
If you want to observe radio waves at a certain frequency you have to filter out the noise and other frequencies. I dont know how else to help you here.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist
I assure you it's weird at best to exclude virtually all none white majority countries.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@ivlfounder
Once again, I can only point out that you are missing the point entirely. It's only wierd if you haven't a clue.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheGodlessGuitarist
Oh golly anyone who doesn't agree with you lacks a clue.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist
Ever heard of sophistry?
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@ivlfounder
If you have a valid objection to the study then make it. But if all you are going to do is sling mud from afar, then the only person you are tainting is you.
I have demonstrated your position to be at best null and void, but all you seem to want to do is demonstrate intellectual honesty. If that is what you consider a moral position to hold then so be it. I cannot shake you from it. But anyone following this conversation will see what has gone on, regardless of subsequent rhetoric.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@ivlfounder
I'm sorry to say this but you are starting sound like you are just deliberately being a dick. You fail to understand the study, perhaps because you don't want to read it, or perhaps it's just too difficult. So in the absence of any sane reason for dissenting you seem to just want to try to taint it with some absurd suggestion of racism.
I'm sorry but your position is starting to stand out now as absurd and immoral.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@ivlfounder Pretending, I didn't think that would be a problem for a god believing Christian. Are you simply out to try to discredit atheists?
mechanicmike69 1 year ago
I am having a hard time taking most of the stuff from fora tv seriously. Especially since they bring up religion once in a while. Not that I am against religion, it is just a complete waste of time.
UnrealGeeMan 1 year ago
man i dont know why all the arguing over christian versus atheists. extreme atheists are every bit as obnoxious as extreme christians. this video is about neither. it's about a really awesome dude that is a doing a lot of good work through structuring his philanthropic website into a social networking medium
trickpanda 1 year ago
@trickpanda
"extreme atheists are every bit as obnoxious as extreme christians"
Yeah, remember those atheists that blew up that abortion clinic?
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist see? look at you here being obnoxious! what the hell does that have to do with anything? i was talking about YOU atheist being annoying being you are every bit as convinced there isn't a god as a christian is convinced there is one- AND u feel the need to spread that gospel. bet u automatically assumed i'm christian. nopes. i dont follow any organised religion and i still think u're obnoxious,
trickpanda 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@trickpanda
"look at you here being obnoxious"
Me being obnoxious? you have compared atheists to extremist Christians. Sorry but there is no comparison. There is no link between atheism and violence. I challenge you to show otherwise.
"u feel the need to spread that gospel"
The gospel of what? Please tell me what dogma I am spreading.
"you are every bit as convinced there isn't a god as a christian is convinced there is "
Again, show how that is true.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@trickpanda
"i was talking about YOU atheist being annoying being you are every bit as convinced there isn't a god as a christian is convinced there is one"
Is that right? so from a brief exchange of posts on here you can tell that I am conviniced to a specific certainty and particular subject can you? And you, paint me, as being 'fundamentalist'?
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist why try to make the point that all atheists are better than christians (w/ your completely non-topical mention of blowing up abortion clinics). why argue w/ me at all? my original post said that extreme (i did not say fundamentalist, YOU DID) atheists are AS ANNOYING as extreme christians. and your argumentativeness and defensiveness here- bringing up subjects that have NOTHING to do with the video, PROVE my point.
trickpanda 1 year ago
@trickpanda
"why try to make the point that all atheists are better than christians"
Where did I do that?
"w/ your completely non-topical mention of blowing up abortion clinics"
No, I was responding to someone who equivocated atheists and Christians.
"atheists are AS ANNOYING"
I honestly don't care if I'm annoying. I'm sure pedophiles find the police annoying.
"...your argumentativeness...PROVE my point"
Well that settles it then, lol
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist your arrogance that there isn't a god is the same arrogance that christians have that their god is the only god. you sitting here trying to convert the christians is really no different than the door-to-door jehovah's witnesses interrupting atheists' days. it's self-serving pride and doesn't really accomplish anything positive. opposite of u is the kiva guy, who takes something negative (all this division) and makes it into something positive- helping the needy succeed
trickpanda 1 year ago
@trickpanda "your arrogance that there isn't a god..."
1. What the hell does this have to do with the discussion?
2. Where did I assert that there is no god?
3. Erradicating ignorance is turning a negative into a positive.
4. What makes you think I don't help the 'needy'?
And you have the gall to call me arrogant? Try reading your own comment back to yourself.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago 3
@TheGodlessGuitarist 1) you asked me why i called some atheists (and u) annoying 2) ur sn is 'godless', and u r backing atheism in this argument, so unless u are just being argumentative for no reason, it is pretty clear you are athiest. 3) ? 4) i never said that.
5) I re-read what i wrote and stand by it. the fact u feel the need to spread ur personal views on god/lack of god makes you arrogant. evidently you think that because you are athiest, it makes you automatically better than a christian
trickpanda 10 months ago
@trickpanda
1. You are equating my lack of belief with religious certainty with no evidence to support your charge of arrogance.
2. I am an atheist. That still doesn't tell you whether I simply lack belief of believe there is no god.
3. what exactly are you failing to understand?
4. Actually you did. Read back!
5. you can stand by your poor reasoning all you like, but that now is arrogance.
6. Don't tell me what I think, and stop jumping to conclusions based on your own ignorance.
TheGodlessGuitarist 10 months ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist 1. that sentence makes no sense. 2. the general definition of atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). 3. to u, christianity is ignorance. a christian would likely be calling u ignorant. this doesnt make either one of you right. 4. me saying that the person in this video is a giver DOES NOT imply that u are not one. 5. u are just pissed i called u out. 6. "don't tell me what you think" lol, that is the best argument u have to back the fact that u arent arrogant or annoying.
trickpanda 2 months ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist if u have SO MUCH to say about your own brand of atheism, why not state it explicitly to give me a chance to talk about it?? must be fear of being picked apart the same way u must enjoy picking apart organized religions. i dont have the same joy from it, because i realise that religion brings hope and comfort to many good people all over the world, throughout all of history. something in the evolution of our brains made us want to believe in something bigger than ourselves
trickpanda 2 months ago
@trickpanda
Simple. I dont believe there are gods.
I dont 'enjoy' picking apart religion, it is a simple matter of ethics. One either cares or they dont. I do care.
Unfortunately the 'hope and comfort' comes at a horrendous cost to people's humanity. I understand the need, but planting taking up of fantasies in lieu of reason and evidence has done terrible damage to the world, so much so that the species may not survive another 100 years.
It is far better for folk to use reason.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 month ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist what you seem to fail to understand that people WANT to have faith. and if they have the ability to, why not let them?? it is the terrorists of extremists of any beliefset that do horrendous things. your wanting to tell people YOUR "truth" deals with YOUR need to make everyone else the same as you to be happy with them. i find that just as intolerant as people who try to force religion down my throat. the fact that you don't see how ARROGANT that is is my beef with you.
trickpanda 4 days ago
@trickpanda I'm not forcing anyone to do anything, however I am forced to live within rules mandated by Christians, in keeping with their faith, that are completely immoral. You obviously don't care enough to speak up, and you seem to expect me to shut up and suffer in silence. I don't think you have any grasp of ethics whatsoever.
TheGodlessGuitarist 4 days ago
@trickpanda Atheists are still getting used to the idea that we can speak out against religion without horrendous or even life threatening consequences...so you have to forgive us if we seem to be 'in your face' about it. Many christians are far more 'out there' about prosletysing than atheists, so cut us some slack, can you?
boc1953 9 months ago
How the fuck do you have a belief that doesnt believe in other beliefs you believe that their is nothing
gopio9 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gopio9
"How the fuck do you have a belief that doesnt believe in other beliefs you believe that their is nothing "
Could you string a coherent sentence together?
I believe I am looking at a screen right now. How is that believing there is nothing?
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
Atheists are givers. We only have one life to do it right.
SANDIEGOSPEAKS 1 year ago
@SANDIEGOSPEAKS What you are saying is non sense atheists dont believe in a higher power yet they can never explain how so many things work not just the meta physical
gopio9 1 year ago
@gopio9
"they can never explain how so many things work..."
Why would I need to explain how everything works?
"...not just the meta physical"
Demonstrate that there is such a thing and I'll have to change my views.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
Atheists are givers. We only have one life to do it right.
SANDIEGOSPEAKS 1 year ago
@EdikShepard. Unless he doesn't live by any water
ctrlaltdafeat 1 year ago
Thumbs up if you clicked on the video just to read the comments under it.
MoltenPlastic 1 year ago
Charity is dangerous.Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, but give him a fishing rod and he'll eat for a week.
EdikShepherd 1 year ago
@EdikShepherd
Give a man a flame and he may stay warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life, lol
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist That's horrible xD
EdikShepherd 1 year ago
@EdikShepherd
;)
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
Hooray for trivializing our common notion of good into a game.
BoStevoD 1 year ago
I'm reading all the comments and for many of them I'm thinking - "you sad fuckwits".
As has been said elsewhere - they're competing against each other to *do good*, It doesn't matter who wins because the charities win, the people who need a load win, their local economies win.
I hope they keep competing for a long, long time.
jayessaymes 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thumbs up if you thumbs this up.
Pothisant 1 year ago
This is genius, total genius. I am going there now.
thesparitan 1 year ago
So Fora. You want me to pay to watch the entire advertisement/pitch? You almost got me. Great business plan. o_0.
artformeandyou 1 year ago
As an atheist, I thoroughly enjoyed reading all the excuses Christians gave for the outcome of this charity drive. I don't think either side is more or less charitable than the other, I just think it's obvious that atheists are the majority on the internet. Not inlcuding the people that only know how to check their email and facebook.
Michigan1985 1 year ago 3
Not surprised that Atheists are more charitable than Christians.
Christians tend to pass the responsibility onto God when it comes to caring for your fellow man....if only prayer had any real value.
Atheists accept that since God does not exist and therefore we are stuck out here in the middle of nowhere.......it's up to everybody to pitch in and see if we can muddle our way through this.
DeityDestroyer 1 year ago 57
@DeityDestroyer
Atheists donating more than Christians on Kiva isn't a sign that Atheists are more charitable than Christians. I'm sure you know that. I suppose one could make the same argument that Atheists are so bent on proving they're right and trying to beat Christians at everything they're not donating out of moral concern, but rather to win a (symbolic) competition.
Plissken07 1 year ago
@DeityDestroyer What is your hard evidence for your claim that Atheists are more charitable than Chistians? Kiva donations are not representative of charitable giving in general. What I've read from other sources is that American Republicans give more to charity than their Democrat counterparts at the same socioeconomic level. Republicans being in general more religious than Democrats, this would be an indication (though not proof) that the opposite of what you're claiming is likely true.
claytongault 1 year ago
@claytongault
I am an atheist and I am not convinced either way as to whether charitable giving is more prevailant amongst atheists. However there are a few things you should note; atheists often give to faith run charities, as I have done myself, which is most often anonymous, and which faiths are only too happy to claim credit for. Additionally atheists tend to be better educated than Christians and thus many end up in roles that are vital to the maintenance and improvement of humanity.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist While I'm not atheist, it's lovely to see somebody add a good point without slagging off their opponent. This is unlike the comment that got the 2nd most 'likes'.
I believe in giving as a personal choice regardless.
Thx
drchiodo 1 year ago
@drchiodo
Without wishing to attack you personally, I see charitable giving as an easy way to ease the conscience in lieu of real action. Most people won't even email a friend about real problems for fear of seeming too 'activist' let alone write to their politician, read up on a cause, take part in a protest or help someone directly.
Charitable giving, in my opinion is a distraction, and those waving their charity donations from the rooftops are merely advertising their superficiality.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist Well stated and I couldn't agree more. That's why I fund my friend's African charity directly where he & his family have moved to, to actually make a living difference with my and other's money).
But, before you think this is me waving a flag, it ain't, I don't give just the old 10% but, over 1/2. Furthermore, My wife and I volunteer with time, organization, money and love.
I understand what you mean about real problems and seeking help. i'm ignored all the fucking time.
drchiodo 1 year ago
@drchiodo
I'm way more impressed by the actions of you and your wife than donations. It also reminds me that I promised to go out this Christmas and help out some homeless folks. We are currently snowed in but I'll find a way.
As for being ignored, I know exactly what you mean. I am torn between anger and astonishment by that experience, but I try not to let it spill into my words with my social circle. It just alienates and reduces your impact.
I guess we have a lot in common :)
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist We may be on opposite sides on our views of God judging by your youtube name, but it's very refreshing to read your replies.
Re: my donations. Sometimes people have amazing abilities to help people in certain ways that I can't. I don't mind giving them $. I'm just not any good in some groups as they are, esp. if abroad.
You're right, I have to temper my words.... frustrating...
I'm a guitarist too!.
Thanks and good luck with the charity work!
:-)
drchiodo 1 year ago
@drchiodo "We may be on opposite sides on our views of God judging by your youtube name, but it's very refreshing to read your replies."
I really don't care about whether someone believes in gods or not so long as they apply themselves intelligently and with reasonable ethics. I think you'll find most atheists feel this way. Obviously on the net people interact on specific issues, e.g. clashing on religion, and that is often the only experience they have of each other. Go guitarist! ;)
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@drchiodo
"While I'm not atheist, it's lovely to see somebody add a good point without slagging off their opponent"
Like many atheists, I go through phases of being very angry at religious people. I'm a developing philosopher and philanthropist, and I do understand quite a lot about why people are the way they are. However I am also human and prone to bouts of frustration and irrationality despite my best efforts to curtail.
Thank you for the compliment nonetheless.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist Well, I assume that we're talking about the kinds of charitable giving that's actually measurable, not mere speculation.
Next you bring up the level of education, which should never be an excuse for not being generous with your money. Not being generous with your time I can understand, if you work a lot. You can't argue though that your work is so important that you don't have any obligation to help others financially. That's just a bad excuse for selfish behaviour.
claytongault 1 year ago
@claytongault
"charitable giving that's actually measurable, not mere speculation."
I don't know what you were trying to say here.
"you bring up the level of education, which should never be an excuse for not being generous"
I think you missed my point.
"You can't argue though that your work is so important ..."
That wasnt the point at all. The person who finds a treatment or cure for a cancer for example, helps millions without having to put their hand in their pocket.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist I'm referring to an earlier comment you made yesterday, the one starting with "I am an atheist and".
If Christians actually give more voluntarily than do Atheists, comparing apples to apples (educated Christians to educated Atheists, rich to rich, poor to poor), then your argument fails, unless of course you want to argue that an educated Atheist does more good through the paid work performed than does the educated Christian, which is a claim I don't think has any merit.
claytongault 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@claytongault
"If Christians actually give more voluntarily than do Atheists...then your argument fails"
Fails where exactly? My point was that a higher proportion of atheists are likely to be working full-time in humaitarian roles which has far more benefit per person than giving money IMHO.
I agree that beneficiaries largely un-interested in motivations. I'm not sure why you even mention them, because I didn't.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist So now you're switching tracks again. How do you know that Atheists are more likely to work full-time doing humanitarian work? And who is paying their (usually government) salaries?
The effects voluntary giving has on the beneficiaries is the only thing that we should be concerned about, not why people give.
claytongault 1 year ago
@claytongault
Switching tracks? I know that atheist are more likely to work in full-time humanitarian roles because of studies relating religiosity vs education and intelligence. There are more than 40 studies indicating that the more religious a person the poor their educational acheivement and intellect are likely to be. You need 6 years uni and a masters degree at least to be a surgeon.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist You're switching tracks and you're not even noticing it. "Educated" is not the same category as "full-time humanitarian work", whatever that means.
claytongault 1 year ago
@claytongault
""Educated" is not the same category as "full-time humanitarian work","
Do you not understand the connection between education and humanitarian work? as I said before, you need a good degree to be a doctor. Seriously, I'm starting to lose patience with you now, because you are either too dumb to grasp what I am saying or too lazy to read what I am writing and think it through! Either way that is starting to make this discussion seem like a futile act on my part.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist The person who works as, say, a medical doctor is not more doing full-time humaritarian work than the person who is a farmer. One is patching up people who get hurt, the other one is raising the food that keeps them alive. The major difference is that being a medical doctor requires more intellectually, and for this medical doctors are amply compensated through high pay and social status. But the work itself is in no way morally superior to that of a farmer.
claytongault 1 year ago
@claytongault
PS, please supply some references to your research. I have put an example of mine up to be attacked by you. Now let's see some reliable data from you. I don't mean something that you go searching for now. I mean the data off which you have been arguing against me. The data you researched, prior to our conversation.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist I do understand that you are starting to lose patience. That is often the emotional response of people who haven't really thought through their positions, when flaws in their reasoning are exposed. But, don't worry, you don't have to answer my comments.
claytongault 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@claytongault
"do understand that you are starting to lose patience. That is often the emotional response of people who haven't really thought through their positions"
lol
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@claytongault , how does educucated come into play with this?
l8rthen 1 year ago
@l8rthen It shouldn't, but TheGodlessGuitarist brought it up anyway.
claytongault 1 year ago
@claytongault "you want to argue that an educated Atheist does more good through the paid work performed than does the educated Christian, which is a claim I don't think has any merit."
Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@DeityDestroyer That might be part of it, but really, most Christians don't actually conform to everything in the bible. They're just vaguely Christians who use the general God/Jesus thing but come up with their own explanations for stuff. As a result, they're not proud of being Christians and therefore don't care about proving that they will donate more. Atheists, on the other hand, generally believe in the same thing (which is nothing) and are proud of their group.
RockingTheFro 1 year ago
@RockingTheFro
"Atheists, on the other hand, generally believe in the same thing (which is nothing)"
Atheists believe nothing?
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist That's obviously not what I meant. There is no variation in religious views from Atheist to Atheist because they have no religious views (generally).
RockingTheFro 1 year ago
@RockingTheFro
Sorry if it seems like I am being dumb, but I think you are going to have to be more clear about what you are trying to say so that I can understand you. Here is why; there is a great deal of variation amongst atheists in terms of their views of religion. Additionally, many atheists hold explicitly religious views. Examples include atheist Jews, Buddhists, Raliens, spiritualists, Scientologists, cultural Christians ad nauseum.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist Those are all very rare example. What I was saying is Christians aren't proud of being Christians because of the variation in religious views from Christian to Christian. Therefore, they won't try to exceed the donations of atheists. Atheists on the other hand usually agree with their fellow atheists and are proud of being atheists. Am I being more clear now?
RockingTheFro 1 year ago
@RockingTheFro
"Those are all very rare example"
I don't think they are. There are millions of Jews, Buddhists etc all over the world. Things like spiritualism, Buddhism and Scientology are taking many people out of traditional monotheistic religions.
"Atheists on the other hand usually agree with their fellow atheists"
Getting atheists to agree in matters other than their disbelief has been likened to herding cats.
Ask yourself this, are we agreeing right now?
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist But we agree that there is no God correct? And we're both proud and open atheists. And we would love support our fellow atheists. Also, how many atheist Christians do you think there are? Jews, Buddhists, and Scientologists (ugh) aren't in question right now. It's atheists vs Christians.
RockingTheFro 1 year ago
@RockingTheFro
"Also, how many atheist Christians do you think there are". Well Richard Dawkins describes himself as such as does a friend of mine.
"how many atheist Christians do you think there are?"
I think there is a vast number. Here is why; the last census in the UK reported approx. 73% Christian population. That is largely due to the tradition of christening a child. If you poll brits you find that more than 50% are in fact atheist. It all depends on the question being asked.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist Well the can be christened or baptized or whatever, but they're not Christians if they give up their religion in favor of atheism.
RockingTheFro 1 year ago
@RockingTheFro
I think you are missing the point. Let me put it another way, if a Nazi didn't actually believe the specific Nazi dogma of the purity of German blood, does that make him not a Nazi? The point being that a person may not hold a god belief yet still hold many of the same cultural views arising from the religion of the culture they live in.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist IF THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD, THEY ARE ATHEISTS!!!!!!! Many atheists believe in Christian values, does that make them Christian? NO!!! You're Nazi example is stupid. If these Nazis don't believe in the Nazi regime, they may still be a Nazi (technically), but that doesn't mean he's going to support the Nazi regime.
RockingTheFro 1 year ago
@DeityDestroyer they would rather give to the greedy pastors.
michelleknighton 1 year ago
@DeityDestroyer , would Ur analysis hold true for atheists NOT raised in relig influenced culture? That would be a truer test, would it not?
l8rthen 1 year ago
@DeityDestroyer Could it be because there are twice as many members of the Atheist team than the Christian one?
As of the posting of this message, the Atheists donate on average $231 per person and the Christian's donate $305 per person.
Looks like Christians are a pretty charitable bunch after all right?
DuskTredder 1 year ago
@DeityDestroyer
What a shock a faith hater who knows little likes to talk trash on youtube.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@ivlfounder I try to live by that old atheist expression "Love the believer, hate the belief."
DeityDestroyer 1 year ago 23
@DeityDestroyer
Aren't you the guy who called ministers hate mongers?
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@ivlfounder I don't know.
What did they believe?
DeityDestroyer 1 year ago
@DeityDestroyer
I think you denoted Ministers as a group with the term hate mongers.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
don't see what the problem is, every video i watch with anything to do with science people bashing religion why don't you agree to disagree and move on
DNO221 1 year ago
hahaha the irony
jessi95605 1 year ago
If you want to be charitable, help your elderly neighbour or a struggling single mum you know.
If you want to throw money at some randon online fundraiser - Kiva is your bet!
LibertyDownUnder 1 year ago
WHO IS WINNING? That is the question.
Saktoth 1 year ago
Well, who else did not need to be told that donations are not as easily obtained from a group of people taught that people are worthless scum unless part of their club, and that all suffering in this life is acceptable because of the eternal afterlife of kissing a sky man's ass?
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
I call BS. This isn't about fun, this is about money. It's about the money Lebowski.
wimscheers 1 year ago
Atheists beat Christians in charity giving by more than double... No surprise.
ubersteigen 1 year ago
@ubersteigen
It is no surprise in an online charity run that they would be winning. Christians donate to charity all the time, seeing as how the Catholic church is the most charitable organization in the world. In an online charity run like this, atheists would be way more competitive about something like this.
Shah is right in this video. Most of these people (including the Christians) probably are only contributing because then they can say they did. Not because they are morally concerned.
Phantominfernox 1 year ago 6
@Phantominfernox Catholics also donated a rather a massive number of paedophile priests who made their own 'donations' to little boys and girls in Ireland, and in the name of 'God' covered the whole story up for decades... bastards.
Junglist1974 1 year ago
@Phantominfernox Well, the motivation behind a person's giving is really irrelevant. The important things are whether or not they give, how much they give and if they keep doing it. And, of course, how the money is used by the receiver. The act of voluntarily giving to those in need is in itself is moral, even if the giver's motivation is utterly selfish.
claytongault 1 year ago
@Phantominfernox
especially the Christians! But to be fair, they are extorted by their churches a fair amount through emotional blackmail, peer pressure and fear of hell, rather than through a genuine interest in a particular cause. Of course there are also genuinely concerned Christians, I would want to tar them all with the same brush, but even then there is a tendency to split the concern between genuine help and an opportunity to proselytise. It does illustrate superficiallity in faiths.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist
Good point. I had a Christian friend of mine tell me the other day that Christians are charitable because they care for their fellow man. I guess we are supposed to ignore the "If I don't do right, I will burn in Hell" aspect of the whole thing. If someone wants to be charitable, then fine, but I wish religious folks would be honest in why they do what they do. Giving in order to stay out of hell seems self-serving to me, but I guess it's better than nothing.
elsquibbs 1 year ago
@elsquibbs
"Giving in order to stay out of hell seems self-serving to me"
Well, it would be unfair to say that this is the only reason Christians act or donate for causes, but when Christiians claim such things in the name of their faith then they are referring to only 2 possibilities; the promise of heaven and/or the threat of hell. Either way it is not merely for the cause.
In balance, none of us act in pure selflessness. There is always an agenda, but some agendas are more honest.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@elsquibbs You see, there are a lot of people in this world to whom it does not come naturally to be generous, who consider moral reflection to be a major waste of time. In fact, many people think only of themselves and what's in it for themselves. Understanding this, is it not a net gain for the world if these people can be convinced to be generous, if only for fear of ending up in Hell?
claytongault 1 year ago
@claytongault "is it not a net gain for the world if these people can be convinced to be generous, if only for fear of ending up in Hell?"
That rather depends on the net effect of the belief don't you think? Millions of people believe they will go to hell if they do not follow all of the Biblical commandments, which include a great deal of unnecessary barbarism and Bronze Age ignorance.
Therefore, acts of kindness that are free of such ill-reasoned motivation have greater net gain IMHO.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist The net effect of the belief that you have an obligation to help your fellow human beings is clearly positive, regardless of the underlying motivation.
The persons benefitting for a voluntary act of giving don't care about your motivations. They care about someone helping out in a very bad situation, even if that help comes for the "wrong" reasons. It's irrelevant, as long as the help comes.
The problem is not how to pursuade the good people, but the ones who don't care.
claytongault 1 year ago
@claytongault "net effect of the belief that you have an obligation to help your fellow human beings is clearly positive"
I agree, but we were talking about more than mere obligation, we were talking about the net effect, including all of the terrible harm that arises from beliefs of divine coercion.
"persons benefitting for a voluntary act of giving don't care about your motivations."
It seems like you are trying to evade the issue of negative effects of certain kinds of motivation.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist I disagree that "terrible harm" comes from believing that good deeds are rewarded and bad deeds are punished in an afterlife. Of course anything can be taken to extremes, and is in some cases, but "terrible harm" is not a logical consequence of a belief in an afterlife. In fact, I would argue that many people who hold a religious belief do so because they see the many positive effects that such beliefs can have on a person's life.
claytongault 1 year ago
@claytongault
"I disagree that "terrible harm" comes from believing that good deeds are rewarded and bad deeds are punished in an afterlife"
Disagree all you like, but I can show you a very credible study that points to the polar opposite of your view.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist I don't think you can. You have already confused the "educated" category with the category of people doing "full-time humanitarian work", so I'm more than a bit sceptical of your ability to properly assess the results of any study.
claytongault 1 year ago
@claytongault
"I don't think you can"
Oooo, a challenge. OK, how about the peer reviewed article in the Journal of Religion and Society: "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies" by Gregory S. Paul?
"You have already confused the "educated" ..."
Actually I haven't. The problem here is that you are talking out of your hat and haven't ever done any actual research whereas I have.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist Oh, I'm very impressed... not. You managed to produce an obviously biased article published in an online only journal (!) at a third rate university (Creighton Uni. "the largest private religious university in Nebraska"), an article where the methodology was clearly chosen to produce the desired anti-religion results. I am surprised that even such a journal would accept that sloppy article, not even written by a Ph.D. whose research is focused on paleontology, not religion.
claytongault 1 year ago
@claytongault
"Oh, I'm very impressed... not. You managed to produce an obviously biased article"
Biased? how did he manage to get it published in a pro-religion journal? do tell.
hmmm, let's see, third rate eh? watch?v=XHrvr5deVF8
Still not satisfied? What would it take to prove to you that this analysis is correct? hmmm?
The data is all there for you to analyse yourself. Be my guest. But you're not going to do that. Denial is good enough for you.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@claytongault
"I am surprised that even such a journal would accept that sloppy article, not even written by a Ph.D. whose research is focused on paleontology, not religion."
Sloppy? Let's see you demonstrate it's sloppiness then.
"...whose research is focused on paleontology, not religion."
It really doesn't matter, it is an analysis of metadata. Anyone with a science Ph.D. is more than qualified to collect stats and analyse them.
Let's see you debunk this article properly!
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist We have now reached a point when you are just boring me. Sorry, but as an Atheist it's kind of sad for me to see someone bring up a clearly biased study with all kinds of methodological problems as some kind of refutation of a point made earlier, a point that isn't even addressed in the piece. It's like you're not even taking your position on the subject seriously when you do that.
claytongault 1 year ago
@claytongault
"as an Atheist it's kind of sad for me to see someone bring up a clearly biased study with all kinds of methodological problems"
Yet you haven't pointed out a single problem. lol
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist Looks like you won the debate.
KonigRodskjegg 1 year ago
@KonigRodskjegg
A win by default is not terribly gratifying. I would be far happier to have seen it go to a sensible conclusion, even if it meant me admitting fault. :|
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist
If you're referring to the donating on Kiva as a study one obvious problem is that most Christians are likely giving to charities that they are more familiar with.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@ivlfounder No, it's nothing to do with donating on Kiva. A different study altogether using global data.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist
Do you have a link to this study?
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@ivlfounder
I do, but YT wont let me post it. You can however find it by putting the following in to a search engine:
"Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies"
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist
"in the Prosperous Democracies"?
You do see the problem with this study right?
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@ivlfounder "You do see the problem with this study right?"
Actually, if you read the study, you will see why that is an important part of ensuring it's integrity. If it was done across the board, religion would get unfairly skewed. Also the reporting of data, relevant to this study, in most poor nations is done poorly if at all.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist
"If it was done across the board, religion would get unfairly skewed."
How so?
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@ivlfounder
Because the study aims to keep socio-economics relatively constant across the nations included, thus avoiding the claim that any trends are as a result of socio-economics, as is frequently done by many people.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist
In basic english please.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@claytongault
Additionally we have yet to bring into the discussion the fact that much religious oriented charitable giving does not ever reach the alleged cause. So, no matter how well meaning a donation in such cases they have a net benefit of zero, if we ignore the fact that such funds are very often appropriated, through deception and misapprehension, to very negative causes. For example the millions of dollars that go towards anti-gay compaigns or climate change denial campaigns.
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist Chariable giving that does not end up in the hands of those it was intended for is waste and it is a moral obligation to make sure that the money ends up in the right place. That's not even an issue where one can disagree, so lets not try to create the appearance of disagreement where there is none.
claytongault 1 year ago
@claytongault
"so lets not try to create the appearance of disagreement where there is none."
I have no idea what you are trying to say. Are you telling me that the charitable giving of Muslims that ends up supporting fundamentalist terrorists has a positive benefit to humanity?
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago
@TheGodlessGuitarist Do you honestly think that's what I'm saying? You're not even trying.
claytongault 1 year ago
@Phantominfernox hi not true, catholisism is the richest registered charity, it could easily wipe out wipe out world poverty twice over but the church choose to spend it on murderous auntie contraception campaigns and fancy popal ceremonies !!!! if it where an aethiest charity that had that money it would go on releaving poverty,
mcpartridgeboy 1 year ago
Surprising considering how much Christians outnumber atheists. Generally I think atheist tend to be far more trusting & compassionate of their fellow man as they GENERALLY;
A. are not from the authoritative/conservative mindset that believes the 'poor' are deserving of their position
B. don't think of their fellow man or themselves as "born evil." Christians have a very untrusting & distorted view of mankind as a result of their dogma that says all humans are 'scum' needing salvation
Hopeful71 1 year ago 2
My immediate thought is numbers. Christians outnumber atheists in the USA, UK etc. so they'd be able to donate less per head and still raise more money for charity. Then they'd have yet another bullshit argument about their "moral superiority" to atheists. Whilst it would be a good charity fundraiser I doubt it'd do much in terms of bringing people of differing faiths (or no faith) together.
AtheistBrit 1 year ago
Perhaps it doesn't address the fundemental issue of increasing human solidarity and compassionate decency but it certainly seems a good way of brainstorming different ideas for making a difference.
lanceawatt 1 year ago
What does Virtual Food taste like..... Computer Chips .
my joke... love it
manfromregina 1 year ago
Harnessing competition for the good of man kind ....
LucienZakhaev 1 year ago
The 10 million $ doing nothing is kinda sad. That's the only sad part though.
And btw people, it's not really charity, it's financing. You get your money back, and the repay rate is close to 99%. It's charity if you accept to re-lend all the time.
Meurglys33 1 year ago
We win!!
mrx0066600 1 year ago
Great idea...Stuttering sucks though.
22710001110101 1 year ago
Bill Gates = Atheist group wins
chessdawgz 1 year ago
This is a great idea. If you bring free market competitive principles into charity, you will definitely get more revenue for worthy causes, than just making a meek plea for money. People thrive when they are involved in competition, in nearly every other area of life, so I don't see why charity can't also benefit from this.
alphacause 1 year ago
good stuff
flabbyhabbybabby1 1 year ago