Happy Atheist Forum

Before my fellow atheists jump down my throat, I just want to state that I am indeed an atheist (never been a theist in fact). My question is this, for those of you who wish to do away with religion, what about those people who do undisputed good (feeding poor, rescuing innocent, etc) in the name of religion. I know for a fact that some christians use god as tool to do great things in everyday life and I have benifited from their deeds as well. What would become of these decent people if religion was done away with?

I would say that if those people are only doing those good things because of religion, then we wouldn't lose any good people, at all. A virtuous person who does good things only because God tells him or her to is not virtuous. If they are truly decent, good people, nothing would change save their attribution.

I see your point clearly but these people at least claim that they would not have even thought about helping out without religion. If what your saying is these people would be obsolete without religion then what about the thousands (maybe millions) of people who would suffer?

Logically, if someone wants to do good, they'll find any motivation to do so (valid/logical, or not). If they believe in FSM, they'll rationalize it as doing FSM's will, if they don't they'll do it because it "makes them feel good", or "what goes around comes around" or whatever.

The exception would be those who do good out of fear that they'll burn in hell if they don't. Who knows what they might do if they were freed of their bonds.  

Quote from: "minstrelofc"Logically, if someone wants to do good, they'll find any motivation to do so (valid/logical, or not). If they believe in FSM, they'll rationalize it as doing FSM's will, if they don't they'll do it because it "makes them feel good", or "what goes around comes around" or whatever.

The exception would be those who do good out of fear that they'll burn in hell if they don't. Who knows what they might do if they were freed of their bonds.  

Didn't think about it that way esp the last sentence. Question pretty much answered.

Quote from: "AceWilliams"Didn't think about it that way esp the last sentence. Question pretty much answered.

Glad I could help  

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"I would say that if those people are only doing those good things because of religion, then we wouldn't lose any good people, at all. A virtuous person who does good things only because God tells him or her to is not virtuous. If they are truly decent, good people, nothing would change save their attribution.

If you are starving, does it really matter if the person running the soup kitchen thinks that they are scoring brownie points with Jesus? Or do they need to be doing it out of the goodness of their heart? Does it really matter to you which the case is? Isn't what is important actually the fact that you are getting soup? Do you really struggle with the metaphysics in such a situation?

Saying that you find their justification less than virtuous in no way removes the beneficial outcome of their actions, so is a moot point.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Saying that you find their justification less than virtuous in no way removes the beneficial outcome of their actions, so is a moot point.

I would like to think that most people who are consistently altruistic would still be compassionate to those less fortunate even if they didn't have their religions. They just wouldn't be giving their credit away.
And likely those that were trying to score brownie points with a deity would still have that trait, just instead of getting brownie points with a deity, they might do it for something else (be it another person, or whatever. They would still find a way of making themselves look better than others as they're only comfortable with themselves when they have the security of being able to look down on others...)  <----there's my armchair psychiatry.  

Quote from: "BadPoison"I would like to think that most people who are consistently altruistic would still be compassionate to those less fortunate even if they didn't have their religions.

You may like to think that, but it is not supported by the data, unfortunately. Sociological studies indicate that religious people both give more to charity, and donate more time to charitable ventures than other groups.

QuoteThey just wouldn't be giving their credit away.
And likely those that were trying to score brownie points with a deity would still have that trait, just instead of getting brownie points with a deity, they might do it for something else (be it another person, or whatever. They would still find a way of making themselves look better than others as they're only comfortable with themselves when they have the security of being able to look down on others...)  <----there's my armchair psychiatry.  

I think that the purpose of the brownie point scoring is to make heaven and avoid hell, not to feel superior to other people.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"

Quote from: "BadPoison"I would like to think that most people who are consistently altruistic would still be compassionate to those less fortunate even if they didn't have their religions.

You may like to think that, but it is not supported by the data, unfortunately. Sociological studies indicate that religious people both give more to charity, and donate more time to charitable ventures than other groups.

Note that those in the religious groups are self-selected (as are those who chose not to be part of a religious group), so there's no way to tell how they would act if their religion wasn't there - the studies can't account for that.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"If you are starving, does it really matter if the person running the soup kitchen thinks that they are scoring brownie points with Jesus? Or do they need to be doing it out of the goodness of their heart? Does it really matter to you which the case is? Isn't what is important actually the fact that you are getting soup? Do you really struggle with the metaphysics in such a situation?

Saying that you find their justification less than virtuous in no way removes the beneficial outcome of their actions, so is a moot point.

Never said the actions weren't useful. The topic of the thread is the motivation behind it, not the result.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Never said the actions weren't useful. The topic of the thread is the motivation behind it, not the result.

Dunno, "for good" sounds like a result to me.

Quote from: "minstrelofc"Note that those in the religious groups are self-selected (as are those who chose not to be part of a religious group), so there's no way to tell how they would act if their religion wasn't there - the studies can't account for that.

Most religious people didn't convert, they were raised within their religion, so it was hardly a choice. Though, even if they were, a huge number of them claim their religion to be their motivation, simply denying their word, and sociological studies that align with it because you don't like what it implies seems rather unreasonable to me.

Are you suggesting that a natural tendency of people that become irreligious is greater apathy towards people?

Well, if religion is the only reason some people will do any good for others, then let them have their religion....Someone asked me that once...."If you don't believe in god, then why stay good?" Hmmmmm....I just replied..."because I am a good person."

Maybe the reason the data (which I haven't seen, but we'll assume it's true for what I'm about to say) shows religious people being more charitable than non-religious is because the people who are religious are in more need of getting behind an ideal. Religion just happens to be the most readily available "righteous" ideal for most people - so they choose to align themselves with it. If say, humanism was more mainstream and the various religions were not, how do you know that the same group of people that identify with religion in our reality wouldn't identify with humanism in another?

The data doesn't explain religion as the reason they're more charitable. It only shows the correlation.
You stated that the people themselves stated their religion as their motivation. We don't know what environmental stimuli caused them to choose their religion in the first place. So my hypothesis is still valid: If the landscape of 'ideas' were different it is possible many of the same people who are religious altruists would be aligned with whichever altruistic idea was more readily available to them.


EDIT:
This model doesn't account for those that behave charitable but are not themselves charitable. Another words, those that are doing charity out of fear of a hell wouldn't likely be charitable if they didn't have their religion.
However, I think that assuming that but only a small minority of religious people are only 'good' because of their fear of hell would be ignorant. I find it more likely that those that were being 'good' only out of fear would probably just find a version/doctrine of their religion that allows more leniancy ("Once baptised, always saved" or "By the grace of jesus alone are we saved, not by our works." ect)

Quote from: "Lilbeth"Someone asked me that once...."If you don't believe in god, then why stay good?" Hmmmmm....I just replied..."because I am a good person."

I like it. It's almost too simple, but that's the brilliance of it.
It makes them ask why they have the notion that there must be an external reason to be "good."

Quote from: "BadPoison"If say, humanism was more mainstream and the various religions were not, how do you know that the same group of people that identify with religion in our reality wouldn't identify with humanism in another?

I don't, but anyone can ad hoc an explanation for data they don't like.

QuoteThe data doesn't explain religion as the reason they're more charitable. It only shows the correlation.

You're right, it doesn't, as I said, it merely aligns with the claim by religious people that it motivates them. Sure, all because the evidence is in support of a particular conclusion doesn't necessarily mean it is correct, it merely means that it is the best supported. You are of course free to go with what you'd rather be true regardless of how well it is supported.

QuoteYou stated that the people themselves stated their religion as their motivation. We don't know what environmental stimuli caused them to choose their religion in the first place. So my hypothesis is still valid: If the landscape of 'ideas' were different it is possible many of the same people who are religious altruists would be aligned with whichever altruistic idea was more readily available to them.

Virtually anything is possible, that doesn't make it the best supported conclusion. As I have said from the beginning, you are of course free to go with what you'd like to be true, regardless of the support for it. After all, it isn't impossible, right?

QuoteHowever, I think that assuming that but only a small minority of religious people are only 'good' because of their fear of hell would be ignorant. I find it more likely that those that were being 'good' only out of fear would probably just find a version/doctrine of their religion that allows more leniancy ("Once baptised, always saved" or "By the grace of jesus alone are we saved, not by our works." ect)

What's your support for this? Something else you'd just prefer to believe?  

Quote from: "Hitsumei"

Quote from: "BadPoison"If say, humanism was more mainstream and the various religions were not, how do you know that the same group of people that identify with religion in our reality wouldn't identify with humanism in another?

I don't, but anyone can ad hoc an explanation for data they don't like.

Your explanation isn't anymore supported by your data than mine is.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"

QuoteThe data doesn't explain religion as the reason they're more charitable. It only shows the correlation.

You're right, it doesn't, as I said, it merely aligns with the claim by religious people that it motivates them. Sure, all because the evidence is in support of a particular conclusion doesn't necessarily mean it is correct, it merely means that it is the best supported. You are of course free to go with what you'd rather be true regardless of how well it is supported.

Is this not what you're doing? Or are you just stating another possibility? Again, the data doesn't in itself support anything.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"

QuoteYou stated that the people themselves stated their religion as their motivation. We don't know what environmental stimuli caused them to choose their religion in the first place. So my hypothesis is still valid: If the landscape of 'ideas' were different it is possible many of the same people who are religious altruists would be aligned with whichever altruistic idea was more readily available to them.

Virtually anything is possible, that doesn't make it the best supported conclusion. As I have said from the beginning, you are of course free to go with what you'd like to be true, regardless of the support for it. After all, it isn't impossible, right?

Quote from: "Hitsumei"

QuoteHowever, I think that assuming that but only a small minority of religious people are only 'good' because of their fear of hell would be ignorant. I find it more likely that those that were being 'good' only out of fear would probably just find a version/doctrine of their religion that allows more leniancy ("Once baptised, always saved" or "By the grace of jesus alone are we saved, not by our works." ect)

What's your support for this? Something else you'd just prefer to believe?

I would rather try to see "good" in people - or at the very least hope that they're just doing what they believe is right. I'm putting forth that if they really are doing their actions because they think it's the "right" thing to do, then it doesn't matter if they use religion as an explanation - they would come up with another excuse to do the right thing anyways.

What is your support that they wouldn't do what they're already doing without their religion? Just because they say it's their reasoning, it doesn't mean that they still wouldn't do it if the situation was different. (It doesn't mean they won't either -but all either of us can do is guess at this)

Quote from: "BadPoison"Your explanation isn't anymore supported by your data than mine is.

This is just an attempted redirect, and a argumentum ad hominem fallacy. Even if it were true that I was making unsupported claims, and being a hypocrite by calling you out on doing the same -- my being a hypocrite would in no way invalidate my criticism. Your assertions would still be unsupported conjecture based on what you'd prefer to be the case.

Though, I never gave an explanation, I merely pointed out that religious people donate more time and funds to charitable ventures, and claim themselves that their religion is the motivation for this. This is not arcane knowledge, just do some google searches. The more religious someone is, the happier they tend to claim they are as well. Also something that it not difficult to look up.

QuoteIs this not what you're doing? Or are you just stating another possibility? Again, the data doesn't in itself support anything.

No, I'm pointing out that that correlation with the data supports the claim made by religious people that their religion motivates them to donate time and money to charities, as religious people statistically do donate more money and time to charities.

QuoteI would rather try to see "good" in people - or at the very least hope that they're just doing what they believe is right. I'm putting forth that if they really are doing their actions because they think it's the "right" thing to do, then it doesn't matter if they use religion as an explanation - they would come up with another excuse to do the right thing anyways.

People that say that they do it because it is good, but we are talking about people that say that they do it because of religious motivation. That's different. Surely people that do what they do for other reasons than religious ones are irrelevant to the subject.

QuoteWhat is your support that they wouldn't do what they're already doing without their religion? Just because they say it's their reasoning, it doesn't mean that they still wouldn't do it if the situation was different. (It doesn't mean they won't either -but all either of us can do is guess at this)

The statistically significant figures that indicate that religious people do donate more time and money to charitable ventures. If it were the case that religion wasn't actually the motivation, then you should not expect to see a difference between the amount of time and money donated by religious people opposed to non-religious people, but we do.

As I said, you can attempt to ad hoc an explanation for why this it, but as it stands, that is support for the claim religious people make -- that it is their religion that is the motivation.

My own views are that political views probably have a large amount to do with it, though they also seem to correlate with religious positions, so they may be linked as well. I think that liberals tend to want socialized programs that they can pay taxes towards to help the poor, while conservatives want less government, and do not trust socialized programs, so would rather pay private organizations, such as charities, and donate their own time. While decrying the idea of being forced to do so through taxes.

This is why it is of course better to be poor in a more socialized country like Britain than in America, despite the higher percentage of religious people, and alms and time being donated to charities in the highly religious and conservative USA.

I think that the liberal way of helping the poor is superior, and works to solve, or at least improve the situation, and cause of poverty, instead of just feeding and clothing it, and sending it on its way.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"

Quote from: "BadPoison"Your explanation isn't anymore supported by your data than mine is.

This is just an attempted redirect, and a argumentum ad hominem fallacy. Even if it were true that I was making unsupported claims, and being a hypocrite by calling you out on doing the same -- my being a hypocrite would in no way invalidate my criticism. Your assertions would still be unsupported conjecture based on what you'd prefer to be the case.

If I came across as putting my conjecture as anything more than just conjecture I'm sorry. I recognize that what I stated is a mere hypothesis - and I even pointed out that it's a more comforting hypothesis than the other. (Call this wishful thinking. I recognize this. I can wish something to be true even if it is not. I've stated that I recognize there is no reason to believe this to be the case)

QuoteThough, I never gave an explanation, I merely pointed out that religious people donate more time and funds to charitable ventures, and claim themselves that their religion is the motivation for this. This is not arcane knowledge, just do some google searches. The more religious someone is, the happier they tend to claim they are as well. Also something that it not difficult to look up.

I was not trying to debate this and I don't disagree. If I didn't communicate this properly again I'm sorry. I'm merely pointing out that there may be other qualities that cause people who are more charitable to also be religious (whether they state religion as their motivator or not)

Quote

QuoteIs this not what you're doing? Or are you just stating another possibility? Again, the data doesn't in itself support anything.

No, I'm pointing out that that correlation with the data supports the claim made by religious people that their religion motivates them to donate time and money to charities, as religious people statistically do donate more money and time to charities.

Again, this isn't at all what I was debating.

Quote

QuoteI would rather try to see "good" in people - or at the very least hope that they're just doing what they believe is right. I'm putting forth that if they really are doing their actions because they think it's the "right" thing to do, then it doesn't matter if they use religion as an explanation - they would come up with another excuse to do the right thing anyways.

People that say that they do it because it is good, but we are talking about people that say that they do it because of religious motivation. That's different. Surely people that do what they do for other reasons than religious ones are irrelevant to the subject.

The point I'm trying to make is that someone might say that their motivation is religion, and they surely might believe this to be the case! I think that it's possible this individual subconsciously is already more charitable, and that if a religion wasn't readily available and he/she didn't have the understanding of his/her religion they may still choose to be just as charitable. Only this time, he/she wouldn't have been brainwashed to give all glory to god.

I'm not debating that they see religion as their motivator - what I'm debating is what common core traits (if any) do these people posess that might still lead them to be charitable if they weren't indoctrinated to think it "righteous" to give all credit to their religion/god?

Quote

QuoteWhat is your support that they wouldn't do what they're already doing without their religion? Just because they say it's their reasoning, it doesn't mean that they still wouldn't do it if the situation was different. (It doesn't mean they won't either -but all either of us can do is guess at this)

The statistically significant figures that indicate that religious people do donate more time and money to charitable ventures. If it were the case that religion wasn't actually the motivation, then you should not expect to see a difference between the amount of time and money donated by religious people opposed to non-religious people, but we do.

As I said, you can attempt to ad hoc an explanation for why this it, but as it stands, that is support for the claim religious people make -- that it is their religion that is the motivation.

And I'm convinced this is the case! But why?

I just read over all of your posts again.
Part of how I was responding was because I had thought you were under the impression that if religion didn't exist, there would be less charity (or at the very least, those people that cite religion as their motivation would not be equally charitable)
I see that you didn't say this. Other posters implied it.

QuoteMy own views are that political views probably have a large amount to do with it, though they also seem to correlate with religious positions, so they may be linked as well. I think that liberals tend to want socialized programs that they can pay taxes towards to help the poor, while conservatives want less government, and do not trust socialized programs, so would rather pay private organizations, such as charities, and donate their own time. While decrying the idea of being forced to do so through taxes.

This is why it is of course better to be poor in a more socialized country like Britain than in America, despite the higher percentage of religious people, and alms and time being donated to charities in the highly religious and conservative USA.

I think that the liberal way of helping the poor is superior, and works to solve, or at least improve the situation, and cause of poverty, instead of just feeding and clothing it, and sending it on its way.

I think we're basically saying the same thing.
I'm asking what other factors cause people to be charitable that also cause those people to be religious. If religion didn't exist, would those factors still cause the same people to be charitable?

We agree that they cite religion as their motivator, and I'm convinced that for those that say it is their motivator it is! But if religion as their motivator wasn't present but whichever other factors exist that cause them to be more charitable (if there are any) were still present, is it unreasonable to ask if they might yet still find a new motivator (or even discover themselves as the true motivator... what has been there all along)

Quote from: "BadPoison"I think we're basically saying the same thing.
I'm asking what other factors cause people to be charitable that also cause those people to be religious. If religion didn't exist, would those factors still cause the same people to be charitable?

If only their religious views were to change, then I very much doubt it.

QuoteWe agree that they cite religion as their motivator, and I'm convinced that for those that say it is their motivator it is! But if religion as their motivator wasn't present but whichever other factors exist that cause them to be more charitable (if there are any) were still present, is it unreasonable to ask if they might yet still find a new motivator (or even discover themselves as the true motivator... what has been there all along)

Again, I doubt it. Conservatives tend to show far less compassion for the poverty stricken, and tend to think that it is their own fault for the position they are in, because they are lazy, and unwilling to try hard enough and such. In short, they think that they deserve to be poverty stricken. The fact that they do donate time and money seems contradictory to their views, and if they cite religion as the cause for this, then I think that it explains why they would be willing to do something that their political views seem to contradict.

From this, if they lost their religion, but remained to hold the same political views, I think that they would cease giving alms and time to charitable ventures, and in no way make up for it in any other way.  

This is why I said that I think political views have more to do with it.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Conservatives tend to show far less compassion for the poverty stricken, and tend to think that it is their own fault for the position they are in, because they are lazy, and unwilling to try hard enough and such.

Would you like to provide something to back this up? I think you are painting all conservatives (are you speaking of the American republican party?) with too broad of a stroke.

I would just like to see the numbers that prove that conservatives show less compassion (than who, btw?)

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"Would you like to provide something to back this up?

Just do a google search, it isn't arcane knowledge. Just a quick search reveals multiple articles about it, it doesn't take five seconds to confirm:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18218 (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18218)
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730 (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opini ... ml?_r=1&em (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=1&em)

Contrast this with conservative moral views on the poor, and the well known (at least by anyone who knows anything at all about politics) conservative tendency to trust private organizations more than government ones.

Just go to http://yourmorals.org/ (http://yourmorals.org/) take some surveys, and read the results of the moral opinions of liberals and conservatives that they have established. Just do a few google searches for conservative and liberal views on the poor, and government run social programs.

I am frankly stunned that you think any of this is controversial.  

QuoteI think you are painting all conservatives (are you speaking of the American republican party?) with too broad of a stroke.

I said "tend", I did not say it was true of all conservatives. If you think that saying that there is a statistical significant tendency for group A to do X is painting all of group A with the same brush, then I would suggest that you don't understand statistics. I am speaking of all conservatives and liberals, and what has been established through sociological studies and surveys about what positions they tend to hold on various issues.

QuoteI would just like to see the numbers that prove that conservatives show less compassion (than who, btw?)

Did you even read my posts besides the one you quoted?

I don't like seeing people suffering or getting hurt, how hard is that to understand? When you see a stick thin African child dying in the arms of his mother, doesn't that make you feel upset? Why do you need a "guide book" to make you feel the pain of others? Where is the morality in that? *POOF* god doesn't exist, all of a sudden you are going to rape and kill? I don't need to be blackmailed with eternal punishment in hell, nor do I need to be bribed with forever bliss in heaven to make me a "good person".

So which is more moral? Helping others so you can achieve "paradise", or helping others because you know their pain?

Thats not to say religion is not a motivator, there are bits and pieces of certain religions that can promote good. But do not think of religion as being the only way of motivating good deeds.