Anti-Christian Bigotry?

[Moonlight Graham]

Can you name a few charities that spend 10-20 % of their revenues on their actual causes?

See my reply to Bonam: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23007-anti-christian-bigotry/?p=921649

[dre]

That's your opinion, your view. Others see evidence of a God.

Me thinks you need to look up the definition of evidence...

[Bonam]

The fact is, you need to pay people wages in order to implement programs, and charities need to advertise in order to fundraise. Obviously there's limits to these, and there's some crooked charities, but if you don't think you're mistaken then I want to know where you're getting your info from on this. I don't know of any major charity in Canada that spends anywhere near only 10% on cause/project-related costs.

Info here: http://www.moneysense.ca/the-2013-charity-100-grades

On that list are plenty of charities with "program spending" in the range of 40-60% and that pay their executives 300k+. Someone managing a charity should be in it for the charity, not the 300k+ salary. And how exactly is "program spending" defined? How much of that program spending itself is just another layer of overhead? And anyway, in the US, a lot of so-called "charities" aren't for any actual charitable cause, but are for political campaigns. And charitable contributions to churches and religious institutions are used for nothing other than perpetuating the existence of these institutions. All in all, I don't have a very high view of charity as a way of actually helping people, it is more of a way of making oneself feel better. If one wants to use their money to actually help others... buy their products, invest in their businesses, travel to their countries and spend money.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Bonam

[Guest American Woman]

Me thinks you need to look up the definition of evidence...

Methinks you need to take your own advice, so I will help you out.

ev·i·dence

n.

1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment

2. Something indicative; an outward sign

Again. Those who believe in a god have evidence of God's existence. That some reject it doesn't mean that the religious believe without evidence.

Not so...but let's move on.

Yes, it is so. Atheists believe that there is no god/gods; therefore, it's their belief that there is no god/gods.

Okay I see, that's why you are "not interested in beliefs" and are ignoring the very clear example. You need atheism to be an unfounded belief, like gods or ghosts for that last sentence to be true.

I have no such need for it to be anything other than what it is: a belief that there is no god. What you can't seem to get through your head is that I'm not saying atheists are the opposite side of the coin. Once again. Repeating. I don't paint all atheists with the same brush any more than I paint all religious people with the same brush. I made it very clear who that last sentence is in reference to. And it is true.

You would have a point IF I said it is ludicrous to believe a number between 1 and 100 is 42, because it is 17. You would even have a point if I said the number absolutely cannot be 42. But that's not what has been said.

As I already pointed out, your number comparison is irrelevant. Whether there's a god or not isn't a game of chance.

I've very clearly stated that you are crazy for believing the number is 42 without evidence. And now for the bit about believing evidence into existence.

Try not to make it about me as I've clearly stated that I have no desire to discuss what I do or do not believe; your comments were in regards to all religious people so let's keep it in that context. You said all religious people are nutjobs and of less intelligence in your opinion because they believe in a god. I've pointed out numerous times now that those who believe are not doing so without evidence. You believe that there is no evidence, they believe that there is. You reject their evidence. That doesn't mean that they believe without evidence. That's simply your claim.

Schizophrenics may actually believe they hear voices, but that does not make them real. You can't believe evidence into existence. This is just the faith cop out.. "I believe so it is real". Plus it is something you wouldn't accept in most areas of your life. What if the vacuum salesperson believed it was the best carpet cleaning device money can by? I'm sure you would rather see actual evidence.

Once. Again. Religious people do see evidence of the god that they believe in. I'll turn your accusation back on you. You need to make it "without evidence" to justify your bigoted opinion, but it's not without evidence.

I get that people want to believe there is "more". More life after death or more to love and consciousness than electro-chemical reactions; but again, wanting to believe something doesn't make it real.

Good grief. People don't all believe because they want to. They believe because they believe the evidence. Whoever said wanting to believe something makes it real?? This is your mindset, your belief about the religious. You don't open your mind to the realities of why "the religious" believe in a god at all. The reality is that there is so very many differences among the beliefs of individuals among "religious people," yet you paint them all with the same brush - and that brush is based on what you believe is true. Again. It simply makes you the opposite side of the coin of the religious people who think their views are the way it is.

We already know that feelings we associate with love follow the release of hormones, not the reverse.

Feelings of love release the hormones. The hormones aren't simply released at random, without reason.

.... the truth can be far more interesting than belief in magic.

You can't even have a discussion about religion without claiming it's magic, as you claim to know The Truth. I've made my point. Your claims about the religious are bigotry; just the opposite side of the coin of those who claim their religious beliefs are The Truth. Edited September 28, 2013 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

Methinks you need to take your own advice, so I will help you out.

1 A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment

2 Something indicative; an outward sign

Again. Those who believe in a god have evidence of God's existence. That some reject it doesn't mean that the religious believe without evidence.

I'll use the judicial courts as an example. Can you provide material evidence to prove your point in front of a judge and jury?

The claim is god exists, now let's see Exhibit A. Show, don't tell.

Yes, it is so. Atheists believe that there is no god or gods; therefore, it's their belief that there is no god or gods.

No. No it is not.

I have no such need for it to be anything other than what it is: a belief that there is no god.

What if I believe in Zeus instead of God? Is there a difference? Why don't you believe in Zeus?

What you can't seem to get through your head is that I'm not saying atheists are the opposite side of the coin. Once again.

Yes you are.

Repeating. I don't paint all atheists with the same brush any more than I paint all religious people with the same brush. I made it very clear who that last sentence is in reference to. And it is true.

You just did.

As I already pointed out, your number comparison is irrelevant. Whether there's a god or not isn't a game of chance.

Right, it either is, or is not. And so far 'is not' seems to be leading the way.

Try not to make it about me as I've clearly stated that I have no desire to discuss what I do or do not believe; your comments were in regards to all religious people so let's keep it in that context. You said all religious people are nutjobs and of less intelligence in your opinion because they believe in a god. I've pointed out numerous times now that those who believe are not doing so without evidence. You believe that there is no evidence, they believe that there is. You reject their evidence. That doesn't mean that they believe without evidence. That's simply your claim.

Oh it's not about you but more of the approach you are taking that is being taken to task.

The evidence these people claim would not stand up to basic scrutiny.

Not to mention that the thread was about the crazy stuff in society attributed to religion. Some of them happen to be nutjobs.

Once. Again. Religious people do see evidence of the god that they believe in. I'll turn your accusation back on you. You need to make it "without evidence" to justify your bigoted opinion, but it's not without evidence.

So when anyone makes a claim about anything on these boards, or in life in general, you are not expected to present evidence to back up your point? So I can simply post stuff here, claim it as true and not need to provide any evidence for it? I'd be laughed right off the boards. Heck in some threads I am laughed at even WITH the evidence to back up my claim.

Good grief. People don't all believe because they want to. They believe because they believe the evidence.

What's the evidence?

Whoever said wanting to believe something makes it real??

We could just end the thread right there...

This is your mindset, your belief about the religious. You don't open your mind to the realities of why "the religious" believe in a god at all.

The reasons of 'why' tend to be more philosophical and anecdotal instead of based on hard facts.

The reality is that there is so very many differences among the beliefs of individuals among "religious people," yet you paint them all with the same brush - and that brush is based on what you believe is true.

Sometimes people are open to the evidence, but then we have posters who say that they simply don't feel the need to show anyone else the evidence, then really what is the point in even making a post?

And then we have this....

Again. It simply makes you the opposite side of the coin of the religious people who think their views are the way it is.

But you said ....

What you can't seem to get through your head is that I'm not saying atheists are the opposite side of the coin. Once again.

"Listen to what I say"

So really wtf are you trying to say? This is getting to be a consistent thing with you making a statement and contradicting yourself in the same post.

Feelings of love release the hormones. The hormones aren't simply released at random, without reason.

Science can explain part of it, but not all of it. But where there is a gap, there is a god.

You can't even have a discussion about religion without claiming it's magic, as you claim to know The Truth. I've made my point. Your claims about the religious are bigotry; just the opposite side of the coin of those who claim their religious beliefs are The Truth.

Miracles are like magic. But magic is more slight of hand and illusions through smoke and mirrors and the power of suggestion to make you think you are seeing something that is not. Hmm kind of like religion.

And if you can essentially indoctrinate a child into believing a god without evidence, then what else will the child believe without evidence?

Edited September 28, 2013 by GostHacked

[Bonam]

What if I believe in Zeus instead of God? Is there a difference? Why don't you believe in Zeus?

But that's different! If you use the four letters "Zeus" that's just a silly pagan belief. But if you use the five letters "Jesus" that is real and must be revered! Why? Because we say so! In fact, Christianity has a long history of burning and killing everyone that wasn't an atheist in regards to all other gods.

[BubberMiley]

This is getting to be a consistent thing with you making a statement and contradicting yourself in the same post.

It's a surefire way to never lose an argument. Both sides are covered.

[GostHacked]

It's a surefire way to never lose an argument. Both sides are covered.

The kicker?? I end up being a jerk for pointing it out. I am sure it is all a simple misunderstanding.

[The_Squid]

Yes, it is so. Atheists believe that there is no god/gods; therefore, it's their belief that there is no god/gods.

I know you think it helps your argument to play little semantic games, but your argument that disbelief is the same as belief is just getting silly.

Calling the absence of belief a belief is nonsensical.

[bleeding heart]

It's a lazy argument, and quite frustrating.

And no one would stand for it in any other type of argument (well...maybe partisan electoral politics. )

[Guest American Woman]

What's a lazy argument??

[bleeding heart]

The argument that atheism is a belief exactly as religious faith is, as in the other side of the same coin.

[Guest American Woman]

The argument that atheism is a belief exactly as religious faith is, as in the other side of the same coin.

For the love of God. I've never made such a claim. How many times do I have to repeat that? Try reading what I have said.

[GostHacked]

For the love of God. I've never made such a claim. How many times do I have to repeat that? Try reading what I have said.

That's part of the issue, we ARE reading what you have said.

[Guest American Woman]

That's part of the issue, we ARE reading what you have said.

Then try comprehending it.

[GostHacked]

Then try comprehending it.

That's the OTHER part of this issue.

Recap..

What you can't seem to get through your head is that I'm not saying atheists are the opposite side of the coin.

..

It simply makes you the opposite side of the coin of the religious people who think their views are the way it is.

How could I be SOOO confused!?

[Guest American Woman]

That's the OTHER part of this issue.

Recap..

How could I be SOOO confused!?

Because you're not comprehending what I said, perhaps?

"It simply makes you the opposite side of the coin of the religious people who think their views are the way it is" does not translate to "atheism is a belief exactly as religious faith is, as in the other side of the same coin."

My comment wasn't even about atheism or religion - it was about very specific people for very specific reasons.

[The_Squid]

Because you're not comprehending what I said, perhaps?

"It simply makes you the opposite side of the coin of the religious people who think their views are the way it is" does not translate to "atheism is a belief exactly as religious faith is, as in the other side of the same coin."

My comment wasn't even about atheism or religion - it was about very specific people for very specific reasons.

Now you're just talking in circles.

Your belief that everyone should believe as you do...

Show us where AC said this.

And you never did answer this request...

Edited September 29, 2013 by The_Squid

[cybercoma]

What a mess. Why even dignify this nonsense with a response?

[carepov]

In the meantime, imagine yourself in the following hypothetical situations where you are in Canada and the only thing you can know about the person/people is: are they religious or not, otherwise the person is random. You chose the definition of "religious", for example: attend a religious service at least once per month:

-You must lend $1000 to a stranger and trust them to pay you back in a month

-You must rent your basement suite to someone

-You are walking at night in a sketchy part of town and are coming up to a group of 5 people

-You are running a charity and can only call one person for a donation

In these situations would you go with religious or non-religious?

I find the questions a little surprising, since I anticipate that you feel they are, or are almost, rhetorical.

The honest and genuine answer is that I could not care less.

No, the questions are not rhetorical. IMO, you would have a slightly higher probability of a positive outcome if you chose religious people in the above questions.

Here's another:

-You drop your wallet getting into your car and drive away with out noticing, including $300 cash. Would you rather have dropped it in/near a church parking lot or at a random place (eg: a strip mall)?

[The_Squid]

No, the questions are not rhetorical. IMO, you would have a slightly higher probability of a positive outcome if you chose religious people in the above questions.

Here's another:

-You drop your wallet getting into your car and drive away with out noticing, including $300 cash. Would you rather have dropped it in/near a church parking lot or at a random place (eg: a strip mall)?

I would pick a Buddhist temple over a Catholic Church.

But the questions are dumb hypotheticals. Yes, I would prefer to lose my wallet where there is a slightly better chance of honest folks hanging around it. This includes places like yoga studios... Government buildings... And strip clubs... So what?

Edited September 29, 2013 by The_Squid

[Moonlight Graham]

On that list are plenty of charities with "program spending" in the range of 40-60% and that pay their executives 300k+. Someone managing a charity should be in it for the charity, not the 300k+ salary.

I agree, it would be hard for an honest person to take 300k from a charity where that money could be spent helping people. People need to do a bit of research before they donate.

And how exactly is "program spending" defined? How much of that program spending itself is just another layer of overhead?

Yes, there's potential to cook the figures in that way. Hopefully audits help hammer out some of the potential corruption. A lot of charities also get half or more of their funding from the government (they're often basically paid to do work that the government would like to do but don't have the non-money resources), and the gov obviously is careful (though I'm sure not all the time) to track where their money is going.

All in all, I don't have a very high view of charity as a way of actually helping people, it is more of a way of making oneself feel better. If one wants to use their money to actually help others... buy their products, invest in their businesses, travel to their countries and spend money.

It totally depends on the charity and the work it does. They should be judged on a case-by-case and even program-to-program basis. Also, you can't invest in the business or travel to the country of the homeless people living in your city, or for cancer victims. I think you're thinking of international development charities in particular, and yes trade over aid is often better IMO. But sometimes poor countries with little expertise on ie: how to install a well-water pump, or build an irrigation system, need some assistance.

[bleeding heart]

No, the questions are not rhetorical. IMO, you would have a slightly higher probability of a positive outcome if you chose religious people in the above questions.

According to Wikipedia, 24% of Canadians claim no religious affiliation.

And that doesn't automatically determine that all of those people are atheists.

So by your reckoning, we can trust the 75%^ more than we can trust the rest?

A better way would be to find stats on, for a start, criminals.

Do you think there's a higher percentage of atheists among criminals...or a higher percentage of people who consider themselves affiliated with religion somehow, and who are criminals?

[bleeding heart]

No, being a democrat or a communist or a conservative is about holding certain beliefs, just like being a Christian or a Muslim is about holding certain beliefs. There is no difference, and one can and should criticize Christians and Muslims just as much as one might criticize communists or conservatives, if one finds their views disagreeable.

I agree. I see no reason that religious faith should hold a special place in the realm of argument.

Why the peculiar position, to be navigated with such unique care for personal beliefs?

To paraphrase someone else:

"A militant religious person is one who blows up buildings or murders physicians.

A militant atheist is one who speaks disrespectfully about religion."

[Guest American Woman]

I don't see anyone here arguing that religious people's views shouldn't be criticized. It's the intolerance towards all who have any religious beliefs that is being criticized and called out; that's not criticizing their views - which, as I have pointed out repeatedly, vary greatly. How is "all liberals are nutjobs" criticizing their views? How is "conservatives are less intelligent" criticizing their views? And would you accept that as legitimate criticism of liberal and conservative views?

If there is any "peculiar position" being put forward, it's the notion that its somehow acceptable to criticize and cut down all religious people simply because they are religious. Again. No one is suggesting that the religious faith should hold a special place in the realm of argument, but what some of us have been critical of hardly qualifies as "in the realm of argument."

Edited September 29, 2013 by American Woman