Study Confirms (what we all know) - Conks are Assholes

[Screamin_Eagle174]

Regardless, giving to your church, hunting club, the NRA or political party, like conks do in high numbers, is hardly charity.

Giving to a church is charity. When people give to a church, the expectation of charity is there.

Reminds me of the experience I've talked about before when I went riding around with a couple of Mississippi guys after Katrina; both of whom only had slabs where their homes used to be. There were Christians all over the place helping out, feeding people, etc.

One of them said, "Where are all the atheists?"

And the guy who said that was not a particularly religious guy himself. He was just seeing that when his area was in need it was the Christians who were there. They were the boots on the ground helping people. Not the atheists. Not the secularists.

Working at the hospitals and red cross mobile units, because they know god sure wasn't going to save those people.

[houndawg]

Regardless, giving to your church, hunting club, the NRA or political party, like conks do in high numbers, is hardly charity.

Giving to a church is charity. When people give to a church, the expectation of charity is there.

Reminds me of the experience I've talked about before when I went riding around with a couple of Mississippi guys after Katrina; both of whom only had slabs where their homes used to be. There were Christians all over the place helping out, feeding people, etc.

One of them said, "Where are all the atheists?"

And the guy who said that was not a particularly religious guy himself. He was just seeing that when his area was in need it was the Christians who were there. They were the boots on the ground helping people. Not the atheists. Not the secularists.

Don't you think its the least they could do John? After all it was their god who made that mess.

Right?

And how did he know there weren't any atheists out there? Because they didn't tell everybody what heros they are every five minutes?

[D1B]

You missed the point. While that may be true, reread the study in this thread.

Regardless, giving to your church, hunting club, the NRA or political party, like conks do in high numbers, is hardly charity and it certainly doesn't mean a conk aint an asshole.

Well when I say charity, I'm not referring to those last 3. I guess the Salvation Army counts as church.


Sent from the center of the universe.

A miniscule percentage of gifts to a church actually go towards helping the poor.

[D1B]

Giving to a church is charity. When people give to a church, the expectation of charity is there.

Reminds me of the experience I've talked about before when I went riding around with a couple of Mississippi guys after Katrina; both of whom only had slabs where their homes used to be. There were Christians all over the place helping out, feeding people, etc.

One of them said, "Where are all the atheists?"

And the guy who said that was not a particularly religious guy himself. He was just seeing that when his area was in need it was the Christians who were there. They were the boots on the ground helping people. Not the atheists. Not the secularists.

Don't you think its the least they could do John? After all it was their god who made that mess.

Right?

And how did he know there weren't any atheists out there? Because they didn't tell everybody what heros they are every five minutes?

Bet they spent more on loud t-shirts advertising their church, hotel stay, on site worship services, meals for themselves than their labor was actually worth.

[JohnStOnge]

Working at the hospitals and red cross mobile units, because they know god sure wasn't going to save those people.

The question of "God" is secondary in this context. The fact is that in the United States Christians generally make much more of a personal effort in terms of both their time and, proportionately, their money than atheists do.

And it's not surprising because there's no reason for atheists to do that. For some reason many of them feel the need to contend that there's an underlying basis for morality under the assumption that what they believe is true. But there isn't. So even though they may try to find ways to talk the talk it's not surprising that they don't do as much in terms of walking the walk.

My bet would be that Christians are more likely to be working at mobile red cross units than atheists. Hospitals are different. There you're talking about people doing their jobs. They're there primarily to make a living and having to work long hours during an emergency comes with the territory.

[JohnStOnge]

Bet they spent more on loud t-shirts advertising their church, hotel stay, on site worship services, meals for themselves than their labor was actually worth.

I assure you that was not the case. We even had conversations about it. That's how people, including the two guys I was with, were eating. As they made their way around for the day they would stop at these places run by churches providing free meals. We stopped at one. I kind of felt guilty even taking a meal but my hosts insisted that I do so and sit down with them. Nobody attempted to proselytize at all. Nobody was wearing any T shirts that would make them stand out as being from a church group. You could tell it was a church group if you were really looking for that. But it wasn't "in your face" at all. They were just feeding people; giving them hot meals under circumstances where a lot of people couldn't make hot meals of their own because they didn't have houses anymore and there weren't any restaurants operating either.

My hosts told me that's pretty much how they were eating.

[houndawg]

Working at the hospitals and red cross mobile units, because they know god sure wasn't going to save those people.

The question of "God" is secondary in this context. The fact is that in the United States Christians generally make much more of a personal effort in terms of both their time and, proportionately, their money than atheists do.

And it's not surprising because there's no reason for atheists to do that. For some reason many of them feel the need to contend that there's an underlying basis for morality under the assumption that what they believe is true. But there isn't. So even though they may try to find ways to talk the talk it's not surprising that they don't do as much in terms of walking the walk.

My bet would be that Christians are more likely to be working at mobile red cross units than atheists. Hospitals are different. There you're talking about people doing their jobs. They're there primarily to make a living and having to work long hours during an emergency comes with the territory.

Secondary?

You kiddin' me Johnny boy? It was god that made the freaking mess, the least his followers can do is clean up.

[houndawg]

Bet they spent more on loud t-shirts advertising their church, hotel stay, on site worship services, meals for themselves than their labor was actually worth.

I assure you that was not the case. We even had conversations about it. That's how people, including the two guys I was with, were eating. As they made their way around for the day they would stop at these places run by churches providing free meals. We stopped at one. I kind of felt guilty even taking a meal but my hosts insisted that I do so and sit down with them. Nobody attempted to proselytize at all. Nobody was wearing any T shirts that would make them stand out as being from a church group. You could tell it was a church group if you were really looking for that. But it wasn't "in your face" at all. They were just feeding people; giving them hot meals under circumstances where a lot of people couldn't make hot meals of their own because they didn't have houses anymore and there weren't any restaurants operating either.

My hosts told me that's pretty much how they were eating.

Let me guess, you didn't have any conversations about why god killed so many christians with his hurricane, did you John?

[D1B]

Working at the hospitals and red cross mobile units, because they know god sure wasn't going to save those people.

The question of "God" is secondary in this context. The fact is that in the United States Christians generally make much more of a personal effort in terms of both their time and, proportionately, their money than atheists do.

And it's not surprising because there's no reason for atheists to do that. For some reason many of them feel the need to contend that there's an underlying basis for morality under the assumption that what they believe is true. But there isn't. So even though they may try to find ways to talk the talk it's not surprising that they don't do as much in terms of walking the walk.

My bet would be that Christians are more likely to be working at mobile red cross units than atheists. Hospitals are different. There you're talking about people doing their jobs. They're there primarily to make a living and having to work long hours during an emergency comes with the territory.

No shit, asshole. Atheists are a small percentage of population. They also ain't loud and obnoxious about their good deeds like church groups in the south are.

You're also only seeing a loud and open snapshot of the where the money goes. The other 50 weeks of the year, they're blowing money on capital projects, indoctrination campaigns for children, payroll, food, landscaping, statues, 60ft. tall crucifixes, lawyers, etc.

Fact - a miniscule percentage of a church's income goes towards charitable efforts for the poor.

The catholic church is known to be one of the most generous supporters of the poor and disadvantaged and yet anyone would be shocked to learn only about 3 percent of its massive annual income is used to help the poor.

[AZGrizFan]

The catholic church is known to be one of the most generous supporters of the poor and disadvantaged and yet anyone would be shocked to learn only about 3 percent of its massive annual income is used to help the poor.

But they saved your brother's life, so you got THAT going for you, right?

[D1B]

The catholic church is known to be one of the most generous supporters of the poor and disadvantaged and yet anyone would be shocked to learn only about 3 percent of its massive annual income is used to help the poor.

But they saved your brother's life, so you got THAT going for you, right?

Sure. They do great work, but they profited immensely and it's not charity care for the poor, which is what we're talking about.

*They sent a bill to his insurance company for over $1,000,000.

Also, the majority of his care team was trained and educated in secular institutions.

[89Hen]

Fact - a miniscule percentage of a church's income goes towards charitable efforts for the poor.

The catholic church is known to be one of the most generous supporters of the poor and disadvantaged and yet anyone would be shocked to learn only about 3 percent of its massive annual income is used to help the poor.

The Economist estimates that annual spending by the church and entities owned by the church was around $170 billion in 2010 (the church does not release such figures). We think 57% of this goes on health-care networks, followed by 28% on colleges, with parish and diocesan day-to-day operations accounting for just 6% and national charitable activities just 2.7% (see chart). In total, Catholic institutions employ over 1m people, reckons Fred Gluck, a former McKinsey managing partner and co-founder of the National Leadership Roundtable on Church Management, a lay organisation seeking to improve the way the church is run. For purposes of secular comparison, in 2010 General Electric’s revenue was $150 billion and Walmart employed roughly 2m people.

Last I looked, GE and Walmart weren't running free health clinics for people that can't afford health care.

[D1B]

Fact - a miniscule percentage of a church's income goes towards charitable efforts for the poor.

The catholic church is known to be one of the most generous supporters of the poor and disadvantaged and yet anyone would be shocked to learn only about 3 percent of its massive annual income is used to help the poor.

The Economist estimates that annual spending by the church and entities owned by the church was around $170 billion in 2010 (the church does not release such figures). We think 57% of this goes on health-care networks, followed by 28% on colleges, with parish and diocesan day-to-day operations accounting for just 6% and national charitable activities just 2.7% (see chart). In total, Catholic institutions employ over 1m people, reckons Fred Gluck, a former McKinsey managing partner and co-founder of the National Leadership Roundtable on Church Management, a lay organisation seeking to improve the way the church is run. For purposes of secular comparison, in 2010 General Electric’s revenue was $150 billion and Walmart employed roughly 2m people.

Last I looked, GE and Walmart weren't running free health clinics for people that can't afford health care.

Agree, but it's still about 3% of income.

[89Hen]

Agree, but it's still about 3% of income.

Perhaps I didn't read the article closely enough, but do they say what "health care networks" is? Are they saying that's what they pay in health care for the clergy?

[houndawg]

Agree, but it's still about 3% of income.

Perhaps I didn't read the article closely enough, but do they say what "health care networks" is? Are they saying that's what they pay in health care for the clergy?

Health care goes against god's will. So does looking both ways before crossing the street.

[JohnStOnge]

Secondary?

You kiddin' me Johnny boy? It was god that made the freaking mess, the least his followers can do is clean up.

No, I'm not kidding you. What we're talking about here is how Christians act in terms of personal charity and giving their time to helping other people. The question of whether they are correct in believing in God is secondary to the discussion.

And thew they act is that they give more money relative to their incomes and time to helping others, on average, than the general population does and certainly more than atheists do.

[JohnStOnge]

No ****, asshole. Atheists are a small percentage of population.

They are not as charitable on average. And I don't think that should be a surprise. There's no REASON for them to be charitable. In fact you kind of have to question the logic of the ones who do expend their resources in terms of time and money to help others.

If their world view is correct, there is no reason to do that unless they think they're going to build good will so that others will help THEM if they find themselves in trouble. If they don't calculate that there is somethign in it for them, there is no reason to become involved. There really isn't.

Look, if atheism is correct, nothing matters. Somebody ELSE suffering sure as heck doesn't matter. I don't see how you can argue with that.

[houndawg]

Secondary?

You kiddin' me Johnny boy? It was god that made the freaking mess, the least his followers can do is clean up.

No, I'm not kidding you. What we're talking about here is how Christians act in terms of personal charity and giving their time to helping other people. The question of whether they are correct in believing in God is secondary to the discussion.

And thew they act is that they give more money relative to their incomes and time to helping others, on average, than the general population does and certainly more than atheists do.

The first part of this is incomprehensible and the last part is just your opinion.

[houndawg]

No ****, asshole. Atheists are a small percentage of population.

They are not as charitable on average. And I don't think that should be a surprise. There's no REASON for them to be charitable. In fact you kind of have to question the logic of the ones who do expend their resources in terms of time and money to help others.

If their world view is correct, there is no reason to do that unless they think they're going to build good will so that others will help THEM if they find themselves in trouble. If they don't calculate that there is somethign in it for them, there is no reason to become involved. There really isn't.

Look, if atheism is correct, nothing matters. Somebody ELSE suffering sure as heck doesn't matter. I don't see how you can argue with that.

So what if it doesn't matter? That is no reason not to love your family and friends. Just because nobody is watching doesn't mean you should live like a thieving-ass scum-sucking corporatist.

[JohnStOnge]

The first part of this is incomprehensible and the last part is just your opinion.

The first part is because I'm drinking. It was supposed to be a reference to the fact is that they give more. I've seen numerous reports on the second part. I guess it's always possible that reports are not true. But I think if you look into it you'll see that the general assessment is that they give more in terms of their time.

I've even read stuff by atheists admitting to and lamenting that. Maybe when I feel more industrious I'll go ahead and do some Google searches.

[JohnStOnge]

o what if it doesn't matter? That is no reason not to love your family and friends. Just because nobody is watching doesn't mean you should live like a thieving-ass scum-sucking corporatist.

I'm not talking about your family and friends. And to the second part: Why not?

Really, why not? If the atheists view is correct you're just an arrangement of atoms. You exist for a short time then you cease to exist. The best you can hope for is to stimulate yourself on the pleasure side for a short time before entering oblivion. Why should you not "live like a thieving-ass scum-sucking corporatist" if that achieves that? You're not going to be held accountable for it. You're going to be just as dead in the end either way. Just as non-existent. No difference at all.

[houndawg]

o what if it doesn't matter? That is no reason not to love your family and friends. Just because nobody is watching doesn't mean you should live like a thieving-ass scum-sucking corporatist.

I'm not talking about your family and friends. And to the second part: Why not?

Really, why not? If the atheists view is correct you're just an arrangement of atoms. You exist for a short time then you cease to exist. The best you can hope for is to stimulate yourself on the pleasure side for a short time before entering oblivion. Why should you not "live like a thieving-ass scum-sucking corporatist" if that achieves that? You're not going to be held accountable for it. You're going to be just as dead in the end either way. Just as non-existent. No difference at all.

Well obviously lots of people do and they never get held accountable. Dick Cheney springs to mind. It's too bad, but its their choice. I guess they're not really any worse than those who don't act that way only because they are afraid of being held accountable by some magical being in the sky.