Yeah they would. People would still feel a sense of sadness and urgency when they saw a starving child or a natural event decimate communities. Difference would be that more charity dollars would be spent on helpful resources rather than trying to convert them to the right religion.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
Which charity?
Cross International.
I also work through one or two other organisationss through my church.
I think you disregard the fact that spirituality seems to be imprinted in a lot of people. Just take a look at this thread. There's a lot of people here, who believe in a supernatural entity, despite being perfectly educated, intelligent and wealthy.
Why? Because they seem to have an innate desire for such an entity. Some hope for a form of immortality, others just want to believe someone's guarding and protecting them from somewhere above, for many it's a combo of both.
Yes, traditional organized religions seem to be on a declining path, but as Synco outlined correctly, people seek their niches elsewhere.
Its not imprinted (whatever that means), its socially acquired and reinforced by the social structures humans have lived in over the past 10,000 or so years. There is no biological necessity for humans to believe such nonsense, and just as it once emerged, it will also be gradually expunged from all legitimate discourse a social structures change over time, which will change social norms, rules, ideas, identity, and thus the legitimacy of believing complete fairy tales.
Cross International's own website... If that's not a red flag I don't know what is.
I don't believe that at all. People tend to be selfish cnuts and religion does a good job of guilting them and organizing them to not be.
Thank feck for that. I thought I would either have demons sticking their red hot pokers up my arse or have priests sticking their red hot pokers up my arse. Although I am an adult so I doubt the priests would be interested.
Sure, that's what I meant with my last sentence. Continued Secularisation and a contradicting, growing religious backlash happening simultaneously. But you know the social reality in the US much better than me, of course.
Even if they did give more on average than non religious people the money isn't as effectively spent, with much of it going directly to church activities rather than what you and I would consider charitable venues. Let's face it, if your buy a starving kid a bible, you're not really helping.
http://religiondispatches.org/new-study-three-quarters-of-american-giving-goes-to-religion/
Scientific research on the matter seems to suggest something different
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/what-twins-reveal-about-god-gene
The whole thing might have started as a social acquitance 10.000 or more years ago, but it seems to be genetically imprinted now.
There is no biological necessity for a lot of things people like to do. Drinking beer, smoking pot, taking photographs, etc,etc. People do things they find enticing.
Believing in something is enticing to a lot of people and offers them some sort of added value to their lives.
Religion as a product appeals to the needs of those who want to believe in something. This seperates it from your conventional Snowhite fairytale, which doesn't come with an eternal afterlife for its followers in its baggage.
Its quite obvious - and for the same reasons why religion is enticing - they are socially acceptable norms that are attractive at the moment because they have been done for sometime which means the identity of people who lived during those periods are affixed to the such traditions/fads etc
This idea that believing in something is enticing doesn't speak to why its enticing. Its not because we are biologically programmed to do so, but rather because we are from a young age, brainwashed into the socio cultural norms of the era we happen to be born in. 500 years from now when religion is relegated to ancient voodoo, people may find such arguments utterly vacuous.
I think there is more to it then you give it credit for. Read that article, it's really interesting.
As for the why, immortality is a pretty strong argument by itself, so is taking solace in the belief someone's guiding the believer. I've spoken to a lot of religious people, and one revolving issue that came up again and again as an example, is that a lot of these folks cannot accept that their existance is finite. None of them were uneducated or poor, a lot of them didn't even have a religious parenthood.
Reducing the matter to sociological brainwash doesn't capture the phenomenon in its entirety, as I think.
You don't have to be educated or uneducated to believe that - you just have to be socialized into a construct where you are taught that this is the way the Universe works - a place where you were created and are destined to go to either heaven or hell where you will continue living forever. A bit like a divine North Korea.
I agree with this.
But there's enough evidence of people who weren't socialized in a religious environment who still follow a religion. Again, I might point you to the article I've linked. It's lengthy read, but well worth the effort. Maybe give it a go, when you find the time.
Silva. You are incapable of having a discussion. You attack.
There is no red flag. You Want to see a red flag.
Whatever charity I make I do in His name. I do not do it on condition they believe. I do not even mention Him. What Cross International does I am sure is to help the poor. They don't go there to preach.
And you're blind. Their own website, the source that is supposed to make them sound amazing, says as much. You're not giving money to unicef mate, you've giving money to an evangelical organisation.
Goodbye
STATEMENT OF BELIEFS
MISSION
True change comes from within. Physical change is not complete without sharing the Gospel. In order to break the cycle of poverty, we must first start with the heart. This refers to the active combination of word and deed; “holistic ministry”. We must share the hope and good news of the Gospel alongside our social work in order to see the Holy Spirit’s transformative power. Neither side of our ministry is complete without the other. We must address both to see a true transformation and to end the plague of extreme poverty.
We are a Christian ministry that serves the poorest of the poor internationally by channeling aid through existing churches or church-based ministries, cost-effectively helping the poor while advancing the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
VISION
We seek to reflect God's love for us in the way we treat others - not only with words of encouragement, but through practical actions which comfort, sustain and uplift those in greatest need.
The Scriptures clearly reveal this call to action, and its truth will be our guide (1 John 3:16, Isaiah 58:6-12, Matthew 25:31-46, Acts 2:40-47).
As believers in Christ's Gospel of mercy, we strive to bring God's promised salvation to men and women of every race, creed and walk of life. Jesus also taught that the needy are rich in faith - a gift which can bless the poor in spirit. Therefore, we seek to create an exchange of both material and spiritual sustenance between the Church in America and churches in developing countries.
In all things, we strive to glorify God, revealing His perfect grace to the world.
FAITH
1. We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.
2. We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
3. We believe in the deity and humanity of Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, in His present rule as Head of the Church and in His personal return in power and glory.
4. We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful men regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential.
5. We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit, by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.
6. We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost, they that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.
7. We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ, with equality across racial, gender, and class differences.
VALUES
We want to value what God values. We want to conform our heart and mind to the heart and mind of God. Consequently, we humbly seek to be guided by the following core values in our ministry and to constantly seek the wisdom of God to improve our understanding and implementation of these principles.
1. We seek to provide food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, economic opportunities and other such blessings to the poorest of the poor.
2. We seek to help the poor in Jesus' name and for the glory of God.
3. We seek to give priority to those efforts which empower the local church and Christian ministries which help the poor and which are also dedicated to the furtherance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
4. We seek to give priority to those churches and ministries which employ a community-oriented strategy in helping the poor and which increase the self-sufficiency of the poor.
5. We seek to foster an exchange between the churches of the Developing World and the churches of the First World and demonstrate respect for the vision of the churches and ministries with which we work.
6. We seek to maintain a high standard of excellence in our work, not sacrificing the quality of our work for the sake of quantity. And we seek to operate with integrity and honesty in respect to our donors and co-laborers.
http://www.crossinternational.org/beliefs
Bibles aren't nutritious you know.
It does seem like they think the answer to poverty is faith....which is utter nonsense, of course. When religion was at it's height I'm fairly sure there were still lots of poor folk about.
It's the same story with the majority of religious charities. They're evangelical outreach programs, not poverty relief. Hence my instinctive roll of the eyes when a religious person claims their churches are fighting the good fight.
I always like the Benny Hinn/Creflo Dollar ones who insist that they need a private jet to do their foreign ministry work.
I mean, Creflo A. Dollar...the clue's in the fecking name!
Are they the types who tell idiots "give us your money and you'll win the lottery"?So according to the article they investigated identical twins (ergo same genetics) that were separated, whether or not they followed religion and found out that they had a greater similarity that presumably "normal" twins which allows to conclude that it must be genetic? Give me a break.
AFAIK intelligence is to some part genetic so what if less educated people are more religious than more educated ones and so identical twins more often than the others end up in the similar education bracket and that were the similarity is coming from?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology
I did read the article. It seems like the sort of thing one might find on a science popularization website. Finding similarities in adopted, twins is hardly compelling in terms of incontrovertible evidence that religion is genetically encoded in us. Nor is a case where two sisters became religious despite having atheist/agnostic parents. The article makes no attempt to drill down into the myriad of factors that may have influenced such behavior, but instead attempts to gleefully link it to genetics.
Not coincidentally, the author of the article is also the author of a book that is promoted at the bottom of the page. In the Amazon reviews, a professor who actually works in the field characterizes the book as just "wild, rampant, speculation", which is generally the sentiment I got after reading the article.
Last edited:
That's precisely what it suggests, which is borderline laughable imo.
It debunks the assumption that adopting a belief is mainly the result of socialization, and delivers evidence that people who are inclined to believe in something will do so, regardless of their specific circumstances they live in.
It doesn't debunk anything to be honest. It just gives a couple of random examples of twins/sisters without providing any background about methodology and other pertinent information one might want to see when evaluating such a claim.
Thought I'd look on google scholar since your article didn't provide much in the way in the way of data, and this was the only abstract I could find that resembles your argument. Seems like it is mainly the result of environmental factors. It's not like those the twins did anything particularly different to what they were exposed to. Not only does go against your assertions, it indicates that article is selling half-truths.
Why can't you accept that some people genuinely believe that we are all G-d's creatures and feel an extra imperative to help?
Sure awful things are done wrongly in the name of faith but equally many great things are done when one feels an extra accountability and doesn't view life as a meaningless (therefore) disposable gibbering collection of organs.
I'm not religious at all but firmly believe in G-d. And science.
The evidence doesn't support it. Just look at what you're doing in Gaza. Those that claim to be the most pious are often causing the greatest harm.
Pretending that this isn't a defensive conflict for a minute (and lets not derail), I'd argue that if Israel was totally irreligious, the carnage would have been far far worse.
Fair enough, it's for another thread. How about social inequality? If religious peoples were genuinely more generous and inclined to help the disadvantaged, why does the link between inequality and religiosity exist?
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/septemberweb-only/religioninequality.html
The reason is that they're not. The vast majority of people throughout history have been god fearing and religious, and yet, where religion has the strongest roots, inequality is greater. It's almost like believing in god isn't linked to being more generous or kinder.
On a global basis, nobody gives more than the USA, and Europe though - both built on Judaic and Christian values.
Do you think they'd give more if they weren't?
Aren't Christians giving to receive?
I think they would give a very similar amount. And that the money would be far better spent, there's a myriad of research out there that tells us that religious institutions spend a lot of their resources on evangelical projects. The only religious group that donated more to non-religious activities were American Jews, I posted an article a few hours ago that breaks this down.
It's pretty obvious why this myth persists though, with religion being thoroughly debunked at every corner, the "but we're doing good for the community, and the world" is a last ditch attempt to justify the brainwashing of billions.
Yeah, they'll get a new bible if the track record is anything to go on.
This abstract refers to religious affiliation, i.e. which specific religion the subjects felt connected to. Of course that has to be an environmental factor, as there certainly is no Buddhist or whatever religion gene.
What Spector suggests however, is a certain genetic predisposition that influences your likelihood to turn over to some sort of belief, with the specific belief then determined by environmental factors. In contrast to Hamer's publication, who claimed to have identified a specific god gene, I couldn't find any noteworthy publication which outright dismissed his hypothesis.
And no, @Raoul, some guy on Amazon calling himself "GeneticsProf" doesn't count.