Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Glowcat]

So then why are so many charities founded in the name of religion?

Because it's a big WE'RE SO GREAT badge they like to wear and browbeat others into accepting their obviously superior morality despite how freely they take away that charity when dealing with people they despise (like homosexuals)? Because as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, it gives them a great deal of power when it comes to conversions and the like?

You're still evading the fact that if these people were motivated by goodness they'd still contribute to secular charities because it was the goal they were after, not the religious part. That is your argument, isn't it? That these people are motivated to do good because of their religion, and not do what they do for their own purposes?

[Strife26]

Really? How many religious charities have you dealt with lately, because that's really not what they're like. At all.



The religious component of most religious charities is treating people as lost. In their mindset, the average person is lay-religious. They'd feel better if they got to know God's love again (and I can damn well attest that it's true). I've never encountered a religious charity that would turn litmus test someone for help.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The religious component of most religious charities is treating people as lost. In their mindset, the average person is lay-religious. They'd feel better if they got to know God's love again (and I can damn well attest that it's true).

And here we come to the crux of the problem with religious charities. You see yourself as trying to save these people's souls, and that is an ulterior motive to helping them in our world. I find that to be horrible.

I've never encountered a religious charity that would turn litmus test someone for help.

Many of these churches provide services to the poor, such as food, clean clothes and shelter at the cost of time, either by sermons or “volunteer” work. This is not to say that all such places provide said services, during my period of homelessness, I was personally turned away from three soup kitchens in one city (Syracuse, NY) for politely turning down the offer to join the congregation.

[Max White]

Because "Food for Faith" is a good strategy for converting people, if an extremely immoral one.

Now I can't speak for all charities on earth, clearly, but pretty much every religious Australian based charity (See the red cross and the salvos) will gladdy help anybody, regardless of faith. I even once met a charity worker who only ever removed her cross necklace thing while working at a kitchen, so that she wasn't asserting her beliefs on those in need unless they specifically came looking for her views on god.

It is a lie to say that the charity is a front for the church, but rather the church is a front for the charity.

It is evident. There are secular charities aplenty, as MZ mentions in his paper.

Not enough to be evident for the given argument. Their existence does not prove anything, rather than the lack, of rarity of religious charities would be seen as proof.

Because it's a big WE'RE SO GREAT badge they like to wear and browbeat others into accepting their obviously superior morality despite how freely they take away that charity when dealing with people they despise (like homosexuals)? Because as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, it gives them a great deal of power when it comes to conversions and the like?

If they are willing to give billions of dollers to buy a 'WE'RE SO GREAT badge' then I say give it to them. But there is a bigger point here, your making a very bold assertion, with no evidence. Your claiming that religious charities and charity workers exists to further push negitive campaigns like homophobia.
Now I will fight for the fact that the catholic church, and a lot of christan sects have handled homosexuality very badly, but where the fuck do you get off saying that somebody who gives money to a Christian charity is doing so because it allows them to feel good being homophobic? That is discrimination on the level as being racist, sexist or even homophobic.

You're still evading the fact that if these people were motivated by goodness they'd still contribute to secular charities because it was the goal they were after, not the religious part. That is your argument, isn't it? That these people are motivated to do good because of their religion, and not do what they do for their own purposes?

Why do I care if these people are 'motivated by goodness' or not. If they give a lunch out because they want to or because their lord commands it, either way somebody get's a lunch. In this way, their god is a force of good, correcting those that would otherwise not be giving out lunches.

[Strife26]

It is a lie to say that the charity is a front for the church, but rather the church is a front for the charity.

I do like this quote a fair bit. About as religious as a religious charity will normally get is "would you like to talk about God" or something on that nature. Hardly a demand and certainly not a bad thing.

[Glowcat]

It's hard to keep my cool with all the strawmanning going on here. I'm going to take a break after this post.

Because it's a big WE'RE SO GREAT badge they like to wear and browbeat others into accepting their obviously superior morality despite how freely they take away that charity when dealing with people they despise (like homosexuals)? Because as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, it gives them a great deal of power when it comes to conversions and the like?

If they are willing to give billions of dollers to buy a 'WE'RE SO GREAT badge' then I say give it to them. But there is a bigger point here, your making a very bold assertion, with no evidence. Your claiming that religious charities and charity workers exists to further push negitive campaigns like homophobia.
Now I will fight for the fact that the catholic church, and a lot of christan sects have handled homosexuality very badly, but where the fuck do you get off saying that somebody who gives money to a Christian charity is doing so because it allows them to feel good being homophobic? That is discrimination on the level as being racist, sexist or even homophobic.

You're still evading the fact that if these people were motivated by goodness they'd still contribute to secular charities because it was the goal they were after, not the religious part. That is your argument, isn't it? That these people are motivated to do good because of their religion, and not do what they do for their own purposes?

Why do I care if these people are 'motivated by goodness' or not. If they give a lunch out because they want to or because their lord commands it, either way somebody get's a lunch. In this way, their god is a force of good, correcting those that would otherwise not be giving out lunches.

The whole discussion started with regards to the superiority of SECULAR VS. RELIGIOUS charities. Never did I ever say anything about people who donate to those charities doing so with non-charitable intentions. My argument came up in response to your claim that these people would STOP donating if they could only pick from secular charities. Those people? Yeah, they're not motivated by good in the slightest.*

You keep trying to twist the argument so that the only way religious people could donate to charity is when the charity in question serves their religion.

* and that includes motivation to do good by a deity or other supernatural source of laws. If they weren't willing to donate to secular charities then their motivation is the furtherance of a religion.

[Strife26]

I'm afraid that you're the one twisting arguments. The point here is that Religious charities do good, secular work and that attempting to switch to purely secular charities would decrease the resources that they receive, reducing the overall impact of charitable efforts.

[Max White]

It's hard to keep my cool with all the strawmanning going on here. I'm going to take a break after this post.

u mad, bro?

Never did I ever say anything about people who donate to those charities doing so with non-charitable intentions. My argument came up in response to your claim that these people would STOP donating if they could only pick from secular charities. Those people? Yeah, they're not motivated by good in the slightest.

So then why are so many charities founded in the name of religion?

Because it's a big WE'RE SO GREAT badge they like to wear and browbeat others into accepting their obviously superior morality despite how freely they take away that charity when dealing with people they despise (like homosexuals)? Because as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, it gives them a great deal of power when it comes to conversions and the like?

...
You totally did say that. It happened.

You keep trying to twist the argument so that the only way religious people could donate to charity is when the charity in question serves their religion.

Your surprisingly close! What I keep saying it that the only way some religious people would donate to charity is when the charity in question serves their religion.

[Glowcat]

It's hard to keep my cool with all the strawmanning going on here. I'm going to take a break after this post.

u mad, bro?

Yeah, cuz you're being a jerk 

You keep switching the charity being donated to with the people who donate and then say "I GOTCHA!" It's pretty gosh darned rude.

I'm afraid that you're the one twisting arguments. The point here is that Religious charities do good, secular work and that attempting to switch to purely secular charities would decrease the resources that they receive, reducing the overall impact of charitable efforts.

Again, if the people are only willing to donate to Religious Charities instead of being fine with charities that are focused on doing good, then their motivation isn't to either do good on their own or to even do good because they were commanded to, they are "doing good" because it glorifies their religion.

Is this clear yet?

Person who donates to Religious Charity but NOT Secular Charity = Jerk
Person who donates to either Religious Charity or Secular Charity = Cool

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Yat I keep saying it that the only way some religious people would donate to charity is when the charity in question serves their religion.

Those people aren't even being charitable, and the only religious charities they'd donate to are ones like the soup kitchens that turned MZ away in his time of need. That's not charity. That's conversion.

[Strife26]

Yat I keep saying it that the only way some religious people would donate to charity is when the charity in question serves their religion.

Those people aren't even being charitable, and the only religious charities they'd donate to are ones like the soup kitchens that turned MZ away in his time of need. That's not charity. That's conversion.

I'd contend that when your average religious person is going to church and sees something in the bulletin that says "we're doing a food drive for the Bay 12 Food Pantry! Bring you perishable foodstuffs in on the first sunday of the month for collection. If you'd like to help, or if you have any questions, talk to Strife."

There's exposure to a charity that we'd qualify as religious, but the actual goal of the charity is mostly irrelevant to the giver, but that the giver wouldn't have known (or by extension given) about said charity without the bulletin (and by extension the church)

[Max White]

Yeah, cuz you're being a jerk 

Yea, u mad

Those people aren't even being charitable, and the only religious charities they'd donate to are ones like the soup kitchens that turned MZ away in his time of need. That's not charity. That's conversion.

Firstly, that is a very bold assertion. It seems a lot more reasonable to me that these people are more likely to be god fearing zealots, who will give money out of fear of going to hell, than evil cultists who seek to convert the planet. You have this notion that all people of faith are out to convert all others, but the reality of the situation is that most of them are just trying to be nice enough so that they don't burn forever in hell. Arguments based on conspiracy theories are most often poorly founded.
Secondly, I do not care if people are giving out of the goodness of their pure atheist heart, or so that they can sleep with a smug smile knowing they are holy and the rapture will kill the sinners. A donation is a donation. Until destructive motives potentially become destructive actions, I do not give a damn, and donating to the poor is not a destructive action.

EDIT:

Person who donates to Religious Charity but NOT Secular Charity = Jerk
Person who donates to either Religious Charity or Secular Charity = Cool

How wrong you are... How to best point this out to you, I wonder?
What do you make of a person who does not donate to charity?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Donating to the poor is destructive if it's manipulative, which it can be as we've seen from MZ's experience. If you aren't unconditionally helping those in need, then you aren't being altruistic, you're conditionally providing assistance to get what you want out of someone else.

This is why secular charities are better, which has been my argument from the beginning. 

[Max White]

Donating to the poor is destructive if it's manipulative, which it can be as we've seen from MZ's experience. If you aren't unconditionally helping those in need, then you aren't being altruistic, you're conditionally providing assistance to get what you want out of someone else.

This is why secular charities are better, which has been my argument from the beginning.

Penalty for logical falsity.
You are asserting, from your small sample group, that all religious charities function to manipulate. This is false.

[MaximumZero]

Wow, guys. I've gotten some really good feedback here about paper structure. To answer some questions:

I did mean it to have some shock value, especially replacing churches with X. Prof is a very loud evangelical christian who "has proof" that "men walked with dinosaurs" and "there was a great flood", namely because he understands nothing about fossil formation and geological strata respectively (and has demonstrated those lack of fundamental knowledges in class.)

I did mean you to argue the topic (Will the world be better off without organized religion?), and I'd hopefully get some feedback on the paper in the meantime. I do not want a totalitarian state where no one is able to worship whatever. My aim with the imagery of the future was twofold: a) to browbeat the professor with it (it's the only way he'll see it) and b) to envision a future where people don't just take word without question as fact. If everyone studied world religions as hard as I have in the past (which caused total cessation of my beliefs,) then eventually the monster that is organized religion would wither and die.

Thanks for the feedback, all, and please take a deep breath and look at what you're typing before you hit post. If your post includes some tense of "You" in a point, please close your browser window instead of hitting post. No more ad hominems, please.

Dang, guys. Warning - while you were typing 4 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.