The Bible is a book.

Indeed, Christian charities only appear less corrupt for the same reasons that two Baptists that are in the same Sunday School class don't know each other in a bar.

What I find realyl disturbing is the way Kevn quoted me. I get the feeling that the only part he read was the part he quoted. That sort of...well, intentional ignorance, gives me Silent Hill quality chills.

welcome to the club =/.

Im am begining to think the aformentioned quoter type person suffers from selective reality.

I understand. If it helps, I know and love some real Christians who are gawdawful hard to beat at this game, simply because they believe, live, and think long and deeply about their faith.

And they generally don't wear raincoats.

Though most of your opinions are often based purely on opinion or faith, this one probably has a basis in fact because only about 12% of the world isn't religious.

You misunderstand. When comparing, we use percent. So when I say religious people are more likely to give to charities, I mean out of 100 religious people compared to 100 non-religious people.

http://www.saintmatthewschurches.com/ContactUs.aspx

These folks are happy to hear that, Kevn.

Nevermind, then. I guess you're just full of it.

Kevn, of the charities that the religious people give to, what percentage of them are religious charities?

Most charities are religious.

What percentage of charities are religious and what percentage of religous people give what percentage of charitible donations to which kinds of charities? And can I have that in percentages?

It's all on the web. Type google.com in your address window and do some leg work. Or not.

Which is another way of saying "I'll make up stuff and its up to you to prove me wrong"

Bah! You beat me to it. lol

You made the claim, it's not up to me to find out if you are just pulling "facts" out of the air or not.

Don't believe me, or prove me wrong. It matters not to me.

Ah... another way of saying... "crap, they're on to me"

Methinks both sides be pulling their 'facts' outta some place else other than the air.

For curiocity's sake I googled some statistics. There aren't any that are easy to find in regards to specific number of secural charities versus religious charities. However there are a lot of statistics regarding charitable contributions, and those given to religious charaties far outweight those given to secular organizations (here's one such link: http://bethel.jesuswork.org/OrphanageResources/html/charitystatistics.html)

Methinks the issue is more complex that just who is more available to collect money. It's also more complex than simply who is more charitable, no doubt. I mean, in a country that is %75+ Christian, would a corporation look better giving a lot of money to some health, or wildlife, or arts organization, or to some good'ol values local christian family oriented one? Similarly, how much of those charitable contributions by individuals are affected by their philanthropy (then wanting to be generous) versus how much of it is not wanting to feel left out when the plate is passed around, or even fearing that god will strike them down if they do not part with their dollar?

You'll find more interesting figures if you see what organizations claim to fit under the "Christian" umbrella, and the figures going into the amount they advertise themselves (considered a charitable contribution).

My sentiments exactly Devlin.

In what I've seen of such conversations on other forums, I've noticed some repeated primary trends:

* A lot of pro-religion pull stuff out of the Bible at random, misquoting and taking sitings out of obvious context. Not always, but I've seen it done time after time.

* The anti-religious people tend to pick-and-choose their "facts"... presenting the ones that suit their arguments while totally ignoring (and even denying) those that don't.

* The pro-religious people often present the teachings of their personal religious creed, which often tend to form more along the lines of religious tradition rather than the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles (ie, the Bible). And some are even bold enough to personally condemn non-believers to eternal hellfire because they disagree (as far as I've heard, judging and condemnation is supposed to be the job of Jesus, not men).

* The anti-religious people tend to take a generally disrespectful and haughty stance, often in the form of "I've done such-and-such research and so that makes it fact and if you don't believe it then you're an uneducated moron." Opinionated troll posts wear thin really fast.

There are some exceptions of course. There are those anti-religious who present their views in a logical, respectful and "imo" manner, just as there are pro-religious folk who present their arguments by faith and concern for fellow man. Unfortunately, such tend to be the exception rather than the rule.

Which is why I usually stay out of such debates... and why for the most part I stayed out of this one. Bottom line is neither side is going to convince the other-- primarily because no one is interested in discussing and arriving at a reasonable truth. They already have their opinion and nothing else matters.

Ah, don't lump me in with "Anti-Religious"... that would be inaccurate. I am very religious. I am not, however, christian.

I think it's common knowledge that noone will change anyone's mind in these things. However, I think that one side feels they are curbing the spread of something dangerous through debunking tactics, while the other cites the reaction of others and personal testimony because they believe it will incite curiosity (or fear, admittedly) and bring people to their faith.

So teh point is less the debate and more the advertising.

LOL that's not bad.

Actually, you make some valid points. The problem is of course, that the religious are unlikely to bring anyone to their faith (face it, if someone isn't Christian already, it's doubtful a forum war is going to do the trick).

On the other hand, the method that anti-Christians use to "debunk" faith is more likely to drive people to religion than achieve their goal because, well, who likes insulting, arrogant twits? lol And they're sure not going to convince anyone of anything, because well, no one is really here to be convinced of anything.

There are two other trends I've noticed in these conversations:
* Quite often religious people tend to ignore science, accepting the Bible as their sole authority (or alternately, their religious dogma as their sole authority). That often makes them gullible candidates for any nonsense a pulpit-pounder wants to throw out, because often, the church members never actually open the Bible.

That said, there are some exceptions. There are some people who actually read their bibles and seem to be fairly well versed in it. There are also some who are quite educated scientifically and have come to a scientifically-based foundation for their faith (of course, such are held in high disrespect by the anti-God group because well, they disagree). But again, such well-versed/educated seem to be in the minority.

* On the other hand, the anti-God/anti-religious people seem for the most part to be totally clueless about the Bible. All they do is parot what they've read or heard from others (or based their opinions upon by reading isolated passages or watching oh-so-accurate movies. LOL). They have never really put any effort into examining the book in an unbiased manner, and have certainly never read the Bible all the way through. If they have done any study at all, it's usually with pre-formed opinions and their "research" is already tainted by a desire to prove the book wrong, rather than checking to see if it makes sense. One can never arrive at accurate conclusions by entering a research project with pre-formed opinions (unless of course, they stumble across it by sheer luck... which is unlikely).

That said, there are some exceptions. There are some who have examined both sides of the issue and for one reason or another found religion/the Bible to be unacceptable from their viewpoint. They don't disrespect others for their faith, they simply do not accept it as based on reality. That is their right of choice as a human being. That's what we call "free will" and it's a right of every person on the planet.

But as far as forum debates go, no one ever seems to accomplish anything. So in the end, it all boils down to useless... unless of course, one counts the humor aspect.