"Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers"

NecroSteve

Read this!
http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/04/30/religionandgenerosity/

partyatmygaff

Your post sounds an awful lot like:
"Oh look, statistics show that the group I identify with is more likely to be motivated by compassion than the 'other' group. Come on everyone, let's all congratulate ourselves on how a certain study perceived other members of our group."

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter a damn if some study says "Group A is more likely to be motivated by X". Every person is different and should be received on their own merits, not by the merits of the label they've given themselves.

NecroSteve

Stop trolling. I'm not saying anything about anyone. I just think this is interesting because so many religions sell themselves on how compassionate they allegedly are.

Gumbi

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Your post sounds an awful lot like:
"Oh look, statistics show that the group I identify with is more likely to be motivated by compassion than the 'other' group. Come on everyone, let's all congratulate ourselves on how a certain study perceived other members of our group."

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter a damn if some study says "Group A is more likely to be motivated by X". Every person is different and should be received on their own merits, not by the merits of the label they've given themselves.

It kind of does, most especially for the reason just mentioned.

enfant terrible

Ok look I found a study that says religious people are better

"Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions."

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577

partyatmygaff

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Your post sounds an awful lot like:
"Oh look, statistics show that the group I identify with is more likely to be motivated by compassion than the 'other' group. Come on everyone, let's all congratulate ourselves on how a certain study perceived other members of our group."

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter a damn if some study says "Group A is more likely to be motivated by X". Every person is different and should be received on their own merits, not by the merits of the label they've given themselves.

You're right, like I've heard that ingesting lead is more likely to be harmful than ingesting water but I think it's silly to believe that, I'll base what I think on each individual instance of lead ingestion I come across.

partyatmygaff

NecroSteve wrote: »

Stop trolling. I'm not saying anything about anyone. I just think this is interesting because so many religions sell themselves on how compassionate they allegedly are.

For one, a religion and its set of adherents are two different things. The intrinsic values of an idea and the values actually expressed by individuals who claim to adhere to that idea aren't always one and the same. Secondly, I don't think i've heard of many religions who don't try to actually convince people of their beliefs but rely on "Look at us, aren't we all just lovely people?".

Also look up the meaning of troll, it's not "Someone who doesn't agree with you" as you seem to think.

partyatmygaff

Deleted User wrote: »

You're right, like I've heard that ingesting lead is more likely to be harmful than ingesting water but I think it's silly to believe that, I'll base what I think on each individual instance of lead ingestion I come across.

Logic: People are unique and think differently to one another. Atoms of lead generally aren't too different to one another. Therefore trying to compare psychological studies to lead ingestion at an attempt of making a witty quip is silly.

MagicMarker

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Your post sounds an awful lot like:
"Oh look, statistics show that the group I identify with is more likely to be motivated by compassion than the 'other' group. Come on everyone, let's all congratulate ourselves on how a certain study perceived other members of our group."

Wow, you've taken all that from the OPs post? All two words and one link of it?

mikhail

I think people are getting a little too heated over the first reply.

MagicMarker wrote: »

Wow, you've taken all that from the OPs post? All two words and one link of it?

It's a pretty common direction this sort of thing takes. Let's face it, if a religious person posted a link to a study finding the opposite, we'd be pretty defensive as a group.

So all he means, I think, is let's keep the result in perspective. It's one study, quite possibly flawed.

partyatmygaff

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Logic: People are unique and think differently to one another. Atoms of lead generally aren't too different to one another. Therefore trying to compare psychological studies to lead ingestion at an attempt of making a witty quip is silly.

Never know what would be the case if we didn't observe it either so there's that too.

partyatmygaff

MagicMarker wrote: »

Wow, you've taken all that from the OPs post? All two words and one link of it?

"Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers." followed by just a "Read this!" would seem to imply that he agrees with the results of the study and is simply trying to point score against religion. Given that he followed up with "I just think this is interesting because so many religions sell themselves on how compassionate they allegedly are." I don't think my initial perception of his post was unreasonable.

AskJives

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Your post sounds an awful lot like:
"Oh look, statistics show that the group I identify with is more likely to be motivated by compassion than the 'other' group. Come on everyone, let's all congratulate ourselves on how a certain study perceived other members of our group."

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter a damn if some study says "Group A is more likely to be motivated by X". Every person is different and should be received on their own merits, not by the merits of the label they've given themselves.

Agree 100%.
Actually, why are there so many 'anti-religion/we're better than religious types/etc etc' threads in A&A forum

As I write this I am checking out the Christianity forums. I dont see any "anti-atheist" threads Just people talking about their beliefs. But here, it seems that 2 out of 3 threads are about the catholic church Page 1 on here has loads.

MagicMarker

partyatmygaff wrote: »

"Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers." followed by just a "Read this!" would seem to imply that he agrees with the results of the study and is simply trying to point score against religion. Given that he followed up with "I just think this is interesting because so many religions sell themselves on how compassionate they allegedly are." I don't think my initial perception of his post was unreasonable.

Or maybe he just wanted to post a study about stuff that's related to the general stuff that's discussed in the A&A forum? But of course a thread wouldn't be complete in this forum without a Christian acting all persecuted and shít, so thanks for that.

AskJives wrote: »

Agree 100%.
Actually, why are there so many 'anti-religion/we're better than religious types/etc etc' threads in A&A forum

As I write this I am checking out the Christianity forums. I dont see any "anti-atheist" threads Just people talking about their beliefs. But here, it seems that 2 out of 3 threads are about the catholic church Page 1 on here has loads.

Errr.... what would you like us to talk about?

AskJives

MagicMarker wrote: »

Errr.... what would you like us to talk about?

So .. the entire point of the A&A forums is to bash about Religion? In your view

Galvasean

Well this thread is quite the clusterfunk...

Thanks for the link OP. It will be a useful thing to know about the next time a Holy Joe tries to tell me atheists can't be moral.

MagicMarker

AskJives wrote: »

So .. the entire point of the A&A forums is to bash about Religion? In your view

How on earth did you take that from what I said?

You're the one complaining about people talking about religion in the A&A forum, so what would you suggest we talk about?

Galvasean

For the love of... Do we really need another "What is the A&A forum for?" thread :rolleyes:

partyatmygaff

MagicMarker wrote: »

Or maybe he just wanted to post a study about stuff that's related to the general stuff that's discussed in the A&A forum? But of course a thread wouldn't be complete in this forum without a Christian acting all persecuted and shít, so thanks for that.

Where did I ever say or imply that I felt i'm being "persecuted and shít"? If someone on the Christianity forum said "Study reveals that atheists are less likely to be charitable than Christians" you'd have armies of people descending on the thread either trying to make out that the study is invalid and/or saying similar to what I said in my first post.

HUNK

Galvasean wrote: »

For the love of... Do we really need another "What is the A&A forum for?" thread :rolleyes:

Discussing baby recipes.

Delirium

The study deals with the motivation behind acts of generosity, kindness etc. It says that non-religious act out of compassion for others more often than religious people. The religious people do it for "other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns".

It's not saying one group is better than the other, just that there are different motivators behind the act for each group. It shows that religious people aren't motivated by compassion as much as non-religious.

MagicMarker

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Where did I ever say or imply that I felt i'm being "persecuted and shít"? If someone on the Christianity forum said "Study reveals that atheists are less likely to be charitable than Christians" you'd have armies of people descending on the thread either trying to make out that the study is invalid and/or saying similar to what I said in my first post.

I have no problem with you saying the study is invalid or not, but you didn't do that you just went ahead on a rant about how the OP was just trying to point score against religions. It was pointless and unnecessary.

Turtwig

So is this a good study then?

MagicMarker

Jernal wrote: »

So is this a good study then?

The best.

christmas2012

if you look at the latest cardianal / smyth scandal it seems to ring true..

partyatmygaff

MagicMarker wrote: »

I have no problem with you saying the study is invalid or not, but you didn't do that you just went ahead on a rant about how the OP was just trying to point score against religions. It was pointless and unnecessary.

If I hadn't posted my first reply, how do you think this thread would have progressed?

"Ah yes, that's a fascinating correlation but i'm not sure if many solid conclusions can be made from it" or would it have progressed to posts that more or less revolved around "Pfft, all religious people care about is their religion and doctrine while atheists like us are motivated by human compassion"?

Coriolanus

Galvasean wrote: »

For the love of... Do we really need another "What is the A&A forum for?" thread :rolleyes:

Yeah, I thought this was settled. We're here to swap baby recipes and conspire to oppress Christians.

Edit: Hunk beat me to it.

Turtwig

partyatmygaff wrote: »

If I hadn't posted my first reply, how do you think this thread would have progressed?

"Ah yes, that's a fascinating correlation but i'm not sure if many solid conclusions can be made from it" or would it have progressed to posts that more or less revolved around "Pfft, all religious people care about is their religion and doctrine while atheists like us are motivated by human compassion"?

So what if it had, why didn't you wait and see what would happen? You just preempted something based on a condescending assumption. Is it comfy up there on that high horse?

partyatmygaff

Jernal wrote: »

So what if it had, why didn't you wait and see what would happen? You just preempted something based on a condescending assumption. Is it comfy up there on that high horse?

I didn't wait and see what would happen as I (And evidently so do a few others) knew from experience what would have been the likely thread progression.

As a matter of interest, how do you honestly think the thread would have progressed?

fitz0

Nevore wrote: »

Yeah, I thought this was settled. We're here to swap baby recipes and conspire to oppress Christians.

Edit: Hunk beat me to it.

Don't forget the War on Christmas. We have much planning to do before this coming winter solstice.

Turtwig

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I didn't wait and see what would happen as I (And evidently so do a few others) knew from experience what would have been the likely thread progression.

As a matter of interest, how do you honestly think the thread would have progressed?

Against my better hopes, more or less how it actually went. Had you refrained someone body else would most probably have made some vague offhand point trying to dismiss the study as you but that in no way justifies your initial post. You assumed the worst from the start and that's just cynical and wrong. I still pray for the day that I'm wrong and a thread like this descends into a discussion about the actual study's merits. Something which nobody has even mentioned so far. Out of interest, how many people have actually read the study yet?