Any Non religious people here?

[REVROK]

REVROK
"To put this into perspective, religious people are 33 percent of the population but make 52 percent of donations and 45 percent of times volunteered. Secular people are 26 percent of the population but contribute 13 percent of the dollars and 17 percent of the times volunteered."

is there any stats on where the donations go? or where the time is volunteered?

from what I remember christians are supposed to tithe (donate) 10% of their income to the church, so that would account for a large chunk of the 'donations'.

a break down of the charities and their causes could either support your side, or not.

If this is based on the Canadian study that came out last year (I don't have the link right now) it is non-church donations of time & money only that were measured. Since much "church work" consists of feeding and clothing the poor and giving to overseas missions that do the same, that is not entirely a fair comparison, but it still makes the point.

Another study

 

[bigalpha]

1. No, I'm not kidding. Some places in the world consider it moral to stone adulterers to death; that there's nothing wrong with it. Other places would never consider that

2. I don't see how my statement is wrong. One group of religious people have certain beliefs, morals and mores. Another group has different beliefs, morals and mores. One of those groups decides to do something about the other. It's basically the story of the world.

3. You yourself used MLK Jr. as an example.

4. Sure, there are groups that do good just to do good. But can you honestly claim that Christian groups go around the world and build schools and hospitals just because; that they get nothing from it besides that "do good" feeling and they don't try to convert the local people to Christianity?

5. You claimed that missionaries protected native people from being converted by governmental or corporate greed. I was saying that they didn't do it and move along. The goal of being a missionary is to convert people to Christianity.

6. I'm not sure you can claim that if there was no religion, that those people would not donate to charity. Are you claiming that the mere fact that they go to church is what makes them donate to non-profits?

 

[REVROK]

1. No, I'm not kidding. Some places in the world consider it moral to stone adulterers to death; that there's nothing wrong with it. Other places would never consider that

2. I don't see how my statement is wrong. One group of religious people have certain beliefs, morals and mores. Another group has different beliefs, morals and mores. One of those groups decides to do something about the other. It's basically the story of the world.

3. You yourself used MLK Jr. as an example.

4. Sure, there are groups that do good just to do good. But can you honestly claim that Christian groups go around the world and build schools and hospitals just because; that they get nothing from it besides that "do good" feeling and they don't try to convert the local people to Christianity?

5. You claimed that missionaries protected native people from being converted by governmental or corporate greed. I was saying that they didn't do it and move along. The goal of being a missionary is to convert people to Christianity.

6. I'm not sure you can claim that if there was no religion, that those people would not donate to charity. Are you claiming that the mere fact that they go to church is what makes them donate to non-profits?

I have already responded to these questions. hasta Enough said... I really have no desire to argue for the sake of arguing.

 

[XJEEPER]

personal opinion here, but that sounds somewhat hypocritical, to me.

I know your not meaning to push your beliefs/opinion onto anyone here, but; correct
you say that everyone is given the choice to follow, or not.
Webster describes it as a conscience: “a knowledge or feeling of right and wrong with a compulsion to do right.”

The scriptures refer to the same: “For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil.”

then say that those who don't acknowledge the "light of christ" are simply ignoring it.

Ever do something wrong, even though you felt it was wrong, but decided to do it anyway? We all have, because we are human and imperfect. There are always consequences for our choices......

Ignore it enough (repeatedly breaking any of The 10 Commandents would be an example fo this) and you open yourself up to the influence of Satan, who will gladly lead you to do evil instead of good.

what helped people discern right from wrong, good from evil, before the light of christ was found? Was it lost?


I think there is nothing to ignore, so I am not ignoring anything.
I think those who do believe in something can enjoy that belief without me/anyone hindering that belief.
I think those who do believe in something should not try and influence the beliefs/non beliefs of others for any reason what-so-ever.
I believe it really doesn't matter tho, I'm happy with my life, whether it be in ignorance or not... life here is good.
OK

 

[Darky]

You can't argue with moral relativism. In your burning widow example, obviously, murder is wrong. Yet, moral relativism states that what's right for you may be wrong for someone else, completely ignoring the apparent "universal" moral code that has been argued here.

 

[bigalpha]

What if the widow goes into the marriage knowing she'd be burned alive if and when her husband died?

 

[Darky]

In a society where the widow gets burned alive when the man dies, she likely doesn't have much choice in whether or not she gets married.

 

[bigalpha]

Maybe not, but that wasn't the question.

 

[REVROK]

What if the widow goes into the marriage knowing she'd be burned alive if and when her husband died?

Yeah, the African got on the slaver's ship knowing he would land as a slave or dead, too.

In a society where the widow gets burned alive when the man dies, she likely doesn't have much choice in whether or not she gets married.

Thank you... absolutely true in this case.

Maybe not, but that wasn't the question.

All I can say is... wow. Anyone else who was sympathetic to your views before may still be, but they will not admit it on this forum. :anon: Enough arguing for its own sake. Obviously we are not making any headway here.

 

[bigalpha]

Not arguing for its own sake. It is a valid question.

Instead of twisting the question into something it's not, just don't answer it.

 

[REVROK]

Not arguing for its own sake. It is a valid question.

Instead of twisting the question into something it's not, just don't answer it.

There is no one on this planet (who is not a monster) that believes that burning widows is a moral act. There were obviously Hindus in William Carey's time who felt the same way because the laws were changed. The question is not valid, it is ludicrous. Your point about stoning actually proves the moral code issue. The punishment differs, but the morality issue in this case is adultery, not the punishment. Those same cultures also do not lock people up in overcrowded prisons which are more training grounds for criminal behavior than places of rehabilitation. Which is more insane? I don't agree with either.

 

[bigalpha]

Hence the question that if the woman knew that it would happen before she got married, is it still murder. In the case that the woman doesn't have to enter into marriage, then does the morality of the issue change?

Also, some people find the death penalty immoral. Then again, in our society I would imagine that stoning is "cruel and unusual".

 

[REVROK]

Your argument is simply specious... does a tree that falls in a forest with no one around still make a sound? Who cares?

I would argue that our prison system has become "cruel and unusual."

 

[goodburbon]

Originally Posted by REVROK
1. What one religion may consider immoral (burning a widow alive) another religion may not.

You are kidding right?

The Japanese considered it immoral not to kill yourself if you lost the battle.

2. Again, it's a religious-based morality argument. What one religion considers immoral, another does not.

In general the answer to that question is no. Basically, other than a very few exceptions you are just plain wrong in this statement, morality is fairly consistent across religious traditions. This is one of the reasons for the moral argument for the existence of God.


3. So Martin Luther King Jr. fought for equal civil rights based on his religious background, not based on race?

Yes... and both... you are however picking the obvious example from a list since it "seems" to make your point. A bit obvious don't you think?

4. If this is the case, then Christians would build these things based on compassion. The idea of morality and religion should never come up. Christians would build schools for people of a different religion without ever trying to push the Christian faith.

They do

No, they don't. I beleive you Christians call it "planting a seed".

5. You were saying that missionaries fought corporate and governmental greed and corruption. Did the missionaries do that without trying to push the Christian faith or trying to convert people?

You act as though conversion is intrinsically evil... sorry I don't buy that. Did they protect only those who converted or did they use their advocacy as a tool of coercion would be a better question and the answer is that in general (I have not met nor studied the history of every missionary that has served in the last 2000 years) the answer is no.

Conversion IS intrinsically evil. It is deciding that your faith is "right" and someone else's is "wrong" and that you need to correct that inequality by "converting" someone to belive exactly the way that YOU do, which just so happens to be the RIGHT way. Again, as modern Christians say, "I'm just planting a seed (in the hopes that you'll someday see the light and convert)".

6. You're saying that if there was no religion what so ever, that the donations to non-profits would drop dramatically? Is a person immoral because they don't donate to non-profits?

Yes, I am... supported by fact in this... from the Hoover Institute-
"To put this into perspective, religious people are 33 percent of the population but make 52 percent of donations and 45 percent of times volunteered. Secular people are 26 percent of the population but contribute 13 percent of the dollars and 17 percent of the times volunteered."

I did not make a claim of morality, though that could be argued... rather the issue is the common good of a society and the world as a whole.

I had a lot more to say, but in the spirit of civility I refrain. BTW REVROK are you a Reverend?

 

[REVROK]

Others before self.

Thanks Joe- Truest words here.:cheers:

 

[REVROK]

Originally Posted by REVROK
1. What one religion may consider immoral (burning a widow alive) another religion may not.

You are kidding right?

The Japanese considered it immoral not to kill yourself if you lost the battle.

Ahh, but that was a culturally based belief, not based on a religious moral code.

2. Again, it's a religious-based morality argument. What one religion considers immoral, another does not.

In general the answer to that question is no. Basically, other than a very few exceptions you are just plain wrong in this statement, morality is fairly consistent across religious traditions. This is one of the reasons for the moral argument for the existence of God.


3. So Martin Luther King Jr. fought for equal civil rights based on his religious background, not based on race?

Yes... and both... you are however picking the obvious example from a list since it "seems" to make your point. A bit obvious don't you think?

4. If this is the case, then Christians would build these things based on compassion. The idea of morality and religion should never come up. Christians would build schools for people of a different religion without ever trying to push the Christian faith.

They do

No, they don't. I beleive you Christians call it "planting a seed".

You can't even "plant a seed" in much of the world, but you can build a hospital and save people's lives or feed hungry people. The United States Government cannot go into North Korea, but Southern Baptists can. The reason is simple... they delivered food to help with a famine years ago, and have done so several times since, and they did it with no agenda.Yes, they do!

5. You were saying that missionaries fought corporate and governmental greed and corruption. Did the missionaries do that without trying to push the Christian faith or trying to convert people?

You act as though conversion is intrinsically evil... sorry I don't buy that. Did they protect only those who converted or did they use their advocacy as a tool of coercion would be a better question and the answer is that in general (I have not met nor studied the history of every missionary that has served in the last 2000 years) the answer is no.

Conversion IS intrinsically evil. It is deciding that your faith is "right" and someone else's is "wrong" and that you need to correct that inequality by "converting" someone to belive exactly the way that YOU do, which just so happens to be the RIGHT way. Again, as modern Christians say, "I'm just planting a seed (in the hopes that you'll someday see the light and convert)".

Again- I disagree as long as there is no coercion involved. If you believe you have a better way, by all means tell me about it, as long as I have the freedom to disagree. We all live by some kind of meta-narrative, most of the people in this thread have been expressing theirs and in some threads like this some have tried to convert me. Is that immoral? Why? If I chose to adopt their ideas would that be immoral? Why? Is your view of the world so weak that it cannot stand up to another's opinion?

6. You're saying that if there was no religion what so ever, that the donations to non-profits would drop dramatically? Is a person immoral because they don't donate to non-profits?

Yes, I am... supported by fact in this... from the Hoover Institute-
"To put this into perspective, religious people are 33 percent of the population but make 52 percent of donations and 45 percent of times volunteered. Secular people are 26 percent of the population but contribute 13 percent of the dollars and 17 percent of the times volunteered."

I did not make a claim of morality, though that could be argued... rather the issue is the common good of a society and the world as a whole.

I had a lot more to say, but in the spirit of civility I refrain. BTW REVROK are you a Reverend?


I appreciate that... I am not afraid of debate, but I hate arguing to no purpose.

I wondered when someone would ask that. I am a Pastor, yes. One of my buddies nicknamed me Reverend Rock a few years back when he and I were building an FJ40 together.

 

[REVROK]

Goodburbon- I read your earlier post about your wife... I am genuinely sorry that happened to you. Your avatar is awesome... Is that your boy?

 

[Darky]

goodburbon, your view is tainted. You view "planting a seed" as a negative when any Christian who speaks about Christ views it as compassion. I share what I know based on a desire to not see people needlessly suffer in this life or the next.

 

[LostSoul]

I don't believe in religion or what people say god is but i do believe something is out there.
one of my favorite quotes.
"I am ready to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter.". Winston Churchill


If we are bashing the Mormons lets not forget that they didn't let African Americans hold the priesthood or into and temples till 1979. The book of Mormon teaches racist ways. I don't see a god being racist?

OK back on topic.

 

[goodburbon]

goodburbon, your view is tainted. You view "planting a seed" as a negative when any Christian who speaks about Christ views it as compassion. I share what I know based on a desire to not see people needlessly suffer in this life or the next.

I see it as predatory. I see it as arriving in time of weakness as a savior. People or "sheep" as Christians like to refer to themselves then associate the act of being rescued with the religion and God credited by the rescuers. Suddenly all is right with the world percieved, and again it is contributed to the god who was suggested. Even if things go wrong, it becomes a game of "he won't give me more than I can handle", "everything happens for a reason" and "we just don't understand God's plan". You really can't lose with those arguments against someone whom is subscribed to the plan.

It really is a one sided game. All you need is someone reaching out for help and you can be there to sell them your brand of Jesus. It's a really sick game in my opinion.

In fact, here in an informal gathering of those who profess not to believe, you are here to "plant a seed" in the hopes that during a moment of weakness one of us will remember, and perhaps wander to the local church seeking answers.

Admittedly some people need help. It would be great if that help didn't come with a hook though.