[SPLIT] The "finer" points of apologetics and its rebuttal

[pi]

Er, what? Plenty of people live without religion every day. Est. 20% of the world in fact. Do you think that they do not give to charity?

When did anyone say that? I'm just saying that those people chose to not be religious (much like myself), good for them. But taking away religion from those who are religious (as per your question) and then asking whether they would do X, Y and Z is an incomparable scenario.

Show me one lick of research which shows that the irreligious give less to charity than the religious. Just the one. "I think" doesn't count.

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/20/study_less_religious_states_give_less_to_charity/

[enwiabe]

Show me one lick of research which shows that the irreligious give less to charity than the religious. Just the one. "I think" doesn't count.

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/20/study_less_religious_states_give_less_to_charity/

The problem with those studies, and they have been debunked numerous times (although not that one specifically) is that they factor in ALL charitable donations. They include the donations to churches which have the express purpose of disseminating the religion and only religion.

When you reduce it down to ONLY charities that help people in need (i.e. food, water, clothing, sickness etc.) the charity levels equate to roughly the same, link: http://grisham.newsvine.com/_news/2011/11/08/8691971-are-religious-people-more-charitable-than-atheists

I was actually waiting for someone to post a study like that to give this reply, haha

[HighLatency]

Show me one lick of research which shows that the irreligious give less charity than the religious. Just the one. "I think" doesn't count.

No-one can give you that link because no-one has had religion pulled away from them as your scenario suggests:
"Do you think that the people who currently give to charity would not do so without religion?"

Had that of happened to people, maybe either of your view or mine could be validated. Until then, "I think" suffices in a hypothetical situation.

Er, what? Plenty of people live without religion every day. Est. 20% of the world in fact. Do you think that they do not give to charity?

What charitable people are you referring to? The theists or the atheists/agnostics?
If religion was not apart of anyone's lives, the former theists would probably give less without the encouragement of the bible, koran etc and the promise of a eternal afterlife whereas the atheists/agnostics would continue doing what they did since no change would be made to their lives.

[enwiabe]

Er, what? Plenty of people live without religion every day. Est. 20% of the world in fact. Do you think that they do not give to charity?

When did anyone say that? I'm just saying that those people chose to not be religious (much like myself), good for them. But taking away religion from those who are religious (as per your question) and then asking whether they would do X, Y and Z is an incomparable scenario.

Show me one lick of research which shows that the irreligious give less to charity than the religious. Just the one. "I think" doesn't count.

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/20/study_less_religious_states_give_less_to_charity/

Right, and I'm saying look at the irreligious. Do the irreligious give less charity? They're not spurred by their religion.

If they don't give less charity, why would you assume that religious people would act any differently if they were irreligious?

[enwiabe]

Show me one lick of research which shows that the irreligious give less charity than the religious. Just the one. "I think" doesn't count.

No-one can give you that link because no-one has had religion pulled away from them as your scenario suggests:
"Do you think that the people who currently give to charity would not do so without religion?"

Had that of happened to people, maybe either of your view or mine could be validated. Until then, "I think" suffices in a hypothetical situation.

Er, what? Plenty of people live without religion every day. Est. 20% of the world in fact. Do you think that they do not give to charity?

What charitable people are you referring to? The theists or the atheists/agnostics?
If religion was not apart of anyone's lives, the former theists would probably give less without the encouragement of the bible, koran etc and the promise of a eternal afterlife whereas the atheists/agnostics would continue doing what they did since no change would be made to their lives.

These claims require proof... And a simple thought experiment. Do you think if they suddenly stopped believing in god that they'd stop caring that people are suffering?

Do you think it's a logical link? I don't

[HighLatency]

Show me one lick of research which shows that the irreligious give less charity than the religious. Just the one. "I think" doesn't count.

No-one can give you that link because no-one has had religion pulled away from them as your scenario suggests:
"Do you think that the people who currently give to charity would not do so without religion?"

Had that of happened to people, maybe either of your view or mine could be validated. Until then, "I think" suffices in a hypothetical situation.

Er, what? Plenty of people live without religion every day. Est. 20% of the world in fact. Do you think that they do not give to charity?

What charitable people are you referring to? The theists or the atheists/agnostics?
If religion was not apart of anyone's lives, the former theists would probably give less without the encouragement of the bible, koran etc and the promise of a eternal afterlife whereas the atheists/agnostics would continue doing what they did since no change would be made to their lives.

These claims require proof... And a simple thought experiment. Do you think if they suddenly stopped believing in god that they'd stop caring that people are suffering?

Do you think it's a logical link? I don't

Okay you have to admit that your question was a bit vague, when, where, why, how, who?!?!?

[enwiabe]

Imagine you believe in god. Now imagine you realise there is no evidence for this god and you stop believing in him. An advertisement comes on showing a starving child in Africa who needs food. Are you more or less inclined to help? Especially now that you know there's no heaven for him to go to, and no divine interference to save him. It's you and the rest of humanity to the rescue, or bust.

[pi]

These claims require proof... And a simple thought experiment. Do you think if they suddenly stopped believing in god that they'd stop caring that people are suffering?

Do you think it's a logical link? I don't

Yes, because it's so easy to throw away your culture and arguably part of your identity if you're passionate about it. Great experiment.

Imagine you believe in god. Now imagine you realise there is no evidence for this god and you stop believing in him.

I stopped reading after this because I can't imagine that happening.

[HighLatency]

Imagine you believe in god. Now imagine you realise there is no evidence for this god and you stop believing in him. An advertisement comes on showing a starving child in Africa who needs food. Are you more or less inclined to help? Especially now that you know there's no heaven for him to go to, and no divine interference to save him. It's you and the rest of humanity to the rescue, or bust.

Firstly, religion and evidence/proof/factual thingamabobs etc do not connect at all. Whatever evidence you give there is always a loophole because God is a almighty dude that can do anything and is solely based on faith unless you are a fundamentalist piece of trash.
Secondly, the situation would differ from person to person so we can't assume anything =/

[thushan]

Imagine you believe in god. Now imagine you realise there is no evidence for this god and you stop believing in him.

I stopped reading after this because I can't imagine that happening.

Actually...I know of a person who went through that exact thing Enwiabe described. Me.

[Jenny_2108]

Show me one lick of research which shows that the irreligious give less to charity than the religious. Just the one. "I think" doesn't count.

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/20/study_less_religious_states_give_less_to_charity/

Its ridiculous when people think charity simply is giving out money. Some people who wanna donate money but they are very poor.
Does it mean they are stingy? People can still do charity by volunteering or helping others. Sometimes money can't solve the problems, but caring and affection do.

In the end of this article, it also mentions "Boston College professor Alan Wolfe said people in less religious states give in a different way by being more willing to pay higher taxes so the government can equitably distribute more to the poor." In this way, they indirectly do charity.

These claims require proof... And a simple thought experiment. Do you think if they suddenly stopped believing in god that they'd stop caring that people are suffering?

Do you think it's a logical link? I don't

Yes, because it's so easy to throw away your culture and arguably part of your identity if you're passionate about it. Great experiment.

No, you are the one who chooses to become who you want. If you are strong and solid enough, you won't easily throw away part of your identity and yourself.

[pi]

Imagine you believe in god. Now imagine you realise there is no evidence for this god and you stop believing in him.

I stopped reading after this because I can't imagine that happening.

Actually...I know of a person who went through that exact thing Enwiabe described. Me.

Similar to me in fact (although I haven't fully rejected the concept of God yet). But would you agree that most people would be unable to do this though?

Especially those who depend on religion for hope and welfare? Those who are poor, ill and/or desperate?

And furthermore, just because I don't believe in God, I don't see that as my right to ensure that no-one else does, especially those living peaceful and meaningful lives. Just like it's also wrong to (as enwiabe was insinuating in his first post) that religion has a direct effect on "evil", to do so without taking into account any confounding factors would be commit some sort of "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy.

These claims require proof... And a simple thought experiment. Do you think if they suddenly stopped believing in god that they'd stop caring that people are suffering?

Do you think it's a logical link? I don't

Yes, because it's so easy to throw away your culture and arguably part of your identity if you're passionate about it. Great experiment.

No, you are the one who chooses to become who you want. If you are strong and solid enough, you won't easily throw away part of your identity and yourself.

My "Yes, ..." was a sarcastic "Yes" I don't agree with enwiabe's thought experiment at all in fact. As aforementioned, I'd be very surprised if most people who are passionate about their beliefs could easily dismiss them and move on.

[JellyDonut]

Secondly, the situation would differ from person to person so we can't assume anything =/

You can make a fair assumption that for most people, sympathy feels are visceral. Or at least, they don't need some dude to instruct them on how to feel bad when they witness suffering.

[Water]

Imagine you believe in god. Now imagine you realise there is no evidence for this god and you stop believing in him.

I stopped reading after this because I can't imagine that happening.

Actually...I know of a person who went through that exact thing Enwiabe described. Me.

We went through this on the train... And I am sure we came to an agreement about God, whatever it may be, in which he/she/it is mutually exclusive to religion.

[thushan]

Again, I'm talking a theistic god. A god to whom you pray and seek favours and ask forgiveness.