More Poverty = More Religion

vibe666

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/09/religions-correlation-with-poverty/

it would be nice if they would also include relative education levels as well as poverty which is probably a bigger factor, although in general lower levels of income do usually equate to lower educations.

i imagine that would probably explain the US anomaly anyway. they may be a wealthy country overall, but there's a hell of a lot of poor and uneducated people in it.

sink

China is not featured. I think it would be in the bottom left quadrant. That makes things a little different considering china is 1/5th the world population.

Also notice the way all Muslim countries are in the top left quadrant.

The Mad Hatter

In other news, more rain = more wet.

Dades

sink wrote: »

China is not featured. I think it would be in the bottom left quadrant. That makes things a little different considering china is 1/5th the world population.

China is a tough one to classify, though, with their 'official' attitude to religion and the lack of any believable statistics.

Bloody Americans skewing the stats!

vibe666

Dades wrote: »

Bloody Americans skewing the stats!

its because they weigh more.

Zillah

I will throw this on my "reasons to move to Sweden" pile.

sink

Dades wrote: »

China is a tough one to classify, though, with their 'official' attitude to religion and the lack of any believable statistics.

Bloody Americans skewing the stats!

I know quiet a few Chinese through college, almost half my year was Chinese. Out of the ones I got know well all of them were atheist, so my own anecdotal experience backs up the stats released by the Chinese government. However they were all middle class city dwelling Chinese, it's probably a different story amongst the poor and the rural.

sionnach

Religion is an important part of the daily lives of ~55% of irish people? Pull the other one

Dougla2

sionnach wrote: »

Religion is an important part of the daily lives of ~55% of irish people? Pull the other one

just because it gives people solace doesn't mean its true.

JimiTime

Ok guys, lets conduct an experiment. In the name of science. Everyone here gives me €100 a week, and after 5 years, lets see if I'm an atheist. C'mon now guys, its for the sake of science!

PM for account details.

Galvasean

sink wrote: »

I know quiet a few Chinese through college, almost half my year was Chinese. Out of the ones I got know well all of them were atheist, so my own anecdotal experience backs up the stats released by the Chinese government. However they were all middle class city dwelling Chinese, it's probably a different story amongst the poor and the rural.

I've worked and studied with quite a few Chinese people in the past few years. The majority of tehm identified themelves as Christian.

Dougla2

Galvasean wrote: »

I've worked and studied with quite a few Chinese people in the past few years. The majority of tehm identified themelves as Christian.

they could of course be saying that to fit in better in society.

Dades

JimiTime wrote: »

Ok guys, lets conduct an experiment. In the name of science. Everyone here gives me €100 a week, and after 5 years, lets see if I'm an atheist. C'mon now guys, its for the sake of science!

Hmmm.

It would be cheaper to take one of us, beat them up, get them fired, torch their belongings and sully their name amongst their loved ones and see if they found God in the gutter.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

Ok guys, lets conduct an experiment. In the name of science. Everyone here gives me €100 a week, and after 5 years, lets see if I'm an atheist. C'mon now guys, its for the sake of science!

I'll give fifty euro to a charity of our joint choice if you say "I deny the holy spirit".

PM for details.

vibe666

that reminds me, I've been meaning to start a charity to help send John May to the moon, or at least in that general direction, i'm not fussy. :pac:

robindch

vibe666 wrote: »

I've been meaning to start a charity to help send John May to the moon

John May is orbiting some place way, way, way beyond the moon.

mikhail

robindch wrote: »

John May is orbiting some place way, way, way beyond the moon.

That's one eccentric orbit.

philologos

Indeed, the more our minds become clogged up with material possessions, wealth and no limit of other things, the less our minds will be focused on God.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed, the more our minds become clogged up with material possessions, wealth and no limit of other things, the less our minds will be focused on God.

Extremes of wealth don't seem to have stopped people like Benny Hinn -- annual religious turnover estimated at $200million -- from focussing on god, to the exclusion of the reality that the rest of us are confined to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Hinn#Criticism_and_controversy

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Extremes of wealth don't seem to have stopped people like Benny Hinn -- annual religious turnover estimated at $200million -- from focussing on god, to the exclusion of the reality that the rest of us are confined to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Hinn#Criticism_and_controversy

I'd argue that such preachers do it because of the money, not really because of their care for God. That's the means to an end. Perhaps I'm a bit cynical, but that's the only way I really see televangelists.

Stercus Accidit

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd argue that such preachers do it because of the money, not really because of their care for God. That's the means to an end. Perhaps I'm a bit cynical, but that's the only way I really see televangelists.

And when the pope visited London, followed by a parade of men in silk carrying golden cups, golden staves, wearing golden ornamants, that was different? It was only more (not very) subtle than the televangenlists.

Imagine the homes those men closest to the pope live in, do they do their own laundry do you think? Do they drive their own cars?

All religions ecentually focus on making money, its the old saying.

• Collect Followers
• ???????
• Profit

These lads figured out that the best answer to ?????? was organised religion.

The religion may have been started with good intentions, but look at how it has been used by anyone who thought they could exploit it.

philologos

How did we jump from Benny Hinn to the Pope?

As for all religions focusing on making money, this is pretty much incorrect. From what I can see from my church most of the money goes towards funding the expense of using the buildings, heating, electricity and so on, to giving a stipend to the minister, and the rest pretty much going to fund evangelism projects, mission teams, and charities. I can also see on request of the figures for the entire church around the country what is being spent where.

Entirely and transparently non-profit.

The same is true of other churches I've seen.

BTW, I'd love to see a clear critique of such spending patterns with the figures rather than just claiming that it is true without basis.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd argue that such preachers do it because of the money

No shit, Tonto!

Jakkass wrote: »

I can also see on request of the figures for the entire church around the country what is being spent where. Entirely and transparently non-profit.

I'd love to see a clear critique of such spending patterns with the figures rather than just claiming that it is true without basis.

Can you confirm or refute my belief about the religious economy, which is that between zero and five percent of overall turnover are spent on non-religious-related charity, with the other 95% to 100% being spent on the religion itself?

philologos

robindch wrote: »

No shit, Tonto! :)Can you confirm or refute my belief about the religious economy, which is that between zero and five percent of overall turnover are spent on non-religious-related charity, with the other 95% to 100% being spent on the religion itself?

In general I can't without the figures.

Even if the churches themselves did keep the money they gained to use on evangelism, and on community projects, that still does not constitute being profitable organisations rather than non-profit.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Even if the churches themselves did keep the money they gained to use on evangelism, and on community projects, that still does not constitute being profitable organisations rather than non-profit.

The distinction between for-profit and non-profit organizations isn't really all that relevant here -- profits can be magick'd away very easily within most organizations, if that's what the directors want.

I'm sure Hinn's organization is non-profit, but I'm also sure that it still manages to pay him a salary and expenses which probably jointly run into the tens of millions of dollars per year.

I'm still interested in how much money your church puts into non-religious-related (ie, no religious strings at all) projects, and whether this is between 0 and 5%, as it usually appears to be.

Can you look into that if you have a few minutes to spare?

philologos

robindch wrote: »

The distinction between for-profit and non-profit organizations isn't really all that relevant here -- profits can be magick'd away very easily within most organizations, if that's what the directors want.

Profit and non-profit is pretty important when it comes to taxation.

robindch wrote: »

I'm sure Hinn's organization is non-profit, but I'm also sure that it still manages to pay him a salary and expenses which probably jointly run into the tens of millions of dollars per year.

Anyone can clearly see that on the basis of his earnings that it isn't non profit.

robindch wrote: »

I'm still interested in how much money your church puts into non-religious-related (ie, no religious strings at all) projects, and whether this is between 0 and 5%, as it usually appears to be.

Why would it? - The church is about God. Therefore it is more likely to support religious charities rather than secular ones. Tearfund, Christian Aid and so on, do quite good work but are Christian charities.

robindch wrote: »

Can you look into that if you have a few minutes to spare?

If I can whisk out the CofI published figures I will. However, this still wouldn't satisfy your question about all religions.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

The church is about God. Therefore it is more likely to support religious charities rather than secular ones.

I'm being highly specific here.

Many churches claim they do a lot of work which they label "charity". In my experience almost all of this work -- ie the money + services the people receive -- is directly related to propagating the religion (ie, if you join up, you get access to more resources; stuff like that), and almost none of it is provided in a religiously-agnostic way (ie, according to the usual definition of the word "charity").

My understanding suggests that churches spend almost all of their money on themselves, and almost none according to the usual definition of the word "charity". Hence my question.

Jakkass wrote: »

If I can whisk out the CofI published figures I will.

Cheers, I'd appreciate that. I believe the maximum figure for the CofE is ~10%, but the figures I've seen indicate that includes a lot of self-spend, so the exact "charity" (normal meaning) is hard to pin down.

Jakkass wrote: »

However, this still wouldn't satisfy your question about all religions.

No, but it will satisfy me with respect to one religion

vibe666

Jakkass wrote: »

In general I can't without the figures.

Even if the churches themselves did keep the money they gained to use on evangelism, and on community projects, that still does not constitute being profitable organisations rather than non-profit.

it probably does if the vatican are going to make a point of washing it. :pac:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0921/vatican.html