?s about atheism but were afraid to ask

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

02/24/2011 05:42:53 AM · #576

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by Melethia:
... to the DPC community, I've donated several hundred dollars worth of memberships, three cameras, and funds for at least two others. :-)

Me too. At least six memberships, plus I've shipped equipment as far as Japan to members in need. I've bought lots cool stuff for members in the Christmas threads (especially kids). Plus I have my personal favoutite charitable orgs I always support, every year. I'm kind of lucky, and I enjoy spreading the luck. I love helping people out. All without thinking of ulterior motives even!

Am I bragging? Yer fekkin right I am. How else to refute the superiority claims of some around here?

It is a difficult subject. I support a number of charities and give in various ways - I don't particularly shout about it as I'm the same as most people, I suspect.

One instance where I refused support was where a colleague was asking for sponsorship for a religious institution designed to support his religious community. I gave to a national charity instead.

Having said that, I went to church a few weeks ago and was very impressed by the level of community support that they organised. Truly inspirational. The church does provide a very effective framework for well meaning people to organise the donation of time and money. I don't think that the people were any better or more morally minded than me - but they did have a way to focus that energy.

raish

Olympus C-2500L

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

02/24/2011 01:06:37 PM · #577

mores are learned through mirror neurons

Mousie

02/24/2011 03:11:28 PM · #578

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Guys! I believe you! :) It's like you are all falling over yourselves to prove you give. It's sorta...endearing?

Actually I'm subtly pointing out that my 'charity' has more to do with a personal need to keep my house uncluttered than it does any express goodwill. Charity is not about a number of dollars, or a quantity of blood... it's about doing what you can with what you have. Do I 'win' the charity race out of sheer volume? I'd say no. I'd give that prize to someone who sacrifices more of themselves to give to others.

I think a lot of charity is the same. When it's convenient or useful, people are more charitable. When it's inconvenient and not so useful, people are less charitable. Churches make giving convenient, even mandatory! It comes as little surprise to me that religious people would find it easier to donate, and therefor are apt do it more... they'd have a higher volume.

But that's kind or why I get irked when I see the size of charity bandied about instead of the effectiveness of charity. It may be religious people donate more based on actual dollars or time... but I know for a fact they donate to 'charity' to take away my marriage rights. I'd much rather give groceries to a drive that feeds people in need. The two forms of giving I've mentioned here are not equitable in my eyes, so to reduce the argument to "who gives how much?" while leaving off the "to who?" feels grossly unfair.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/24/2011 03:30:17 PM · #579

Originally posted by Mousie:

When it's convenient or useful, people are more charitable. When it's inconvenient and not so useful, people are less charitable.

Did you know that poor people give more to charity than rich people? Seems counterintuitive to your assessment.

Also, there seems to be evidence to say it is recession proof in general:

This was posted 2/11/11.

Charitable giving by UK households is largely recession-proof, according to new research by the University of Bristol and Cass Business School.

But the study also shows that there has been no change in donations as a share of total household spending for more than 20 years. Households in the UK today give 0.4% of their spending to charity â�� exactly the same as they did in 1988.

But 0.4%??? Really?

Message edited by author 2011-02-24 15:33:42.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

02/24/2011 03:35:13 PM · #580

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Did you know that poor people give more to charity than rich people? Seems counterintuitive to your assessment.

As a percentage of income -- perhaps not in absolute dollars. Poor people know how hard it is to get along when you are living at a subsistence level.

I think every legislator should have to give up their per diem and their house and live on a General Assistance grant and Food Stamps for a month or two before they talk about people on welfare being "lazy" ...

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/24/2011 07:04:22 PM · #581

Interestingly, Project Reason just today released their 2011 video contest winners. First place goes to a video concerning charitable giving by atheists. The New Tithe.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

02/24/2011 07:15:56 PM · #582

Originally posted by GeneralE:

...I think every legislator should have to give up their per diem and their house and live on a General Assistance grant and Food Stamps for a month or two before they talk about people on welfare being "lazy" ...

Even this would not be sufficient to qualify for a "lesson", since one group can return to its previously held job and assorted privileges after the exercise is over.

02/24/2011 07:26:32 PM · #583

Originally posted by Louis:

Interestingly, Project Reason just today released their 2011 video contest winners. First place goes to a video concerning charitable giving by atheists. The New Tithe.

Mega-churches have used religion as fund-raising tool for too long. They shower their followers in sanctimonious platitudes, then clamor for their cash. This video encourages a new definition of tithing by giving to causes with accountability.

With an intro like that, I just can't wait! :)

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

02/24/2011 07:32:09 PM · #584

Well, the video was interesting, I guess. I appreciate the challenge to give 10% if your income to charity, but I fail to see why it has to be couched in a "it's us or them" mentality or "they are doing it wrong so it's up to you" context. (which was all really light on substance anyway even if they did have only three minutes). Can't everybody give 10% of their income to a charity of their choice?

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

02/24/2011 07:46:27 PM · #585

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

To some people, giving up 10% of their income means they won't eat.

K3Master

Pentax K-3

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

02/24/2011 07:51:27 PM · #586

I AM a charity.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

02/24/2011 07:53:03 PM · #587

Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, the video was interesting, I guess. I appreciate the challenge to give 10% if your income to charity, but I fail to see why it has to be couched in a "it's us or them" mentality or "they are doing it wrong so it's up to you" context. (which was all really light on substance anyway even if they did have only three minutes). Can't everybody give 10% of their income to a charity of their choice?

To some people, giving up 10% of their income means they won't eat.

That wasn't my point. My point was why couldn't we be happy with everybody giving 10% (who can) instead of phrasing the argument in an "us or them" manner.

I feel sorry for people who live their lives so close to the edge. I am sure there are cases where it is the reality and out of their control, but the vast majority of Americans could easily give up 10% of something to give it away without affecting food, shelter, security.

EDIT: typo

Message edited by author 2011-02-24 19:59:01.

Apple iPhone 5

02/24/2011 09:10:02 PM · #588

I give up 40% every single month in tax, which helps fund the Social Welfare system.

Beat that.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

02/24/2011 09:40:05 PM · #589

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Well, the video was interesting, I guess. I appreciate the challenge to give 10% if your income to charity, but I fail to see why it has to be couched in a "it's us or them" mentality or "they are doing it wrong so it's up to you" context. (which was all really light on substance anyway even if they did have only three minutes). Can't everybody give 10% of their income to a charity of their choice?

NO... I donate a bus load and there are times I would love to give more but, considering that the total taxes I pay require me to work from January to July, I am left with very few options.

Ray

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

02/24/2011 09:53:27 PM · #590

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

...the vast majority of Americans could easily give up 10% of something to give it away without affecting food, shelter, security.

You are in all probability right on the money, but you must remember that once the general populace has provided for their "Needs", they like to address their "Wants", and it is only once these are fulfilled that they will consider assisting others... at least for the most part.

Ray

Mousie

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

02/24/2011 11:18:26 PM · #591

I'd like to draw a distinction between 'convenient' and 'less financial burden'.

Convenient to me is having a box that I need to walk past on the way out of the cafeteria at work, with a sign on it reminding me on a daily basis to bring in some canned goods. Convenient is dropping food into the box as I walk past, since I was already there anyway getting myself lunch. It's the ease of access, and the constant repetition.

Convenience is a well organized group soliciting yearly donations through telephone calls and e-mail, taking my shoddy memory out of the equation.

I'm not sure why you suddenly started talking about poor people, Doc.

Edit to add:

At one point I gave the San Jose Freecycle group a shot so I could find people who needed my old electronics and computer parts. We had an entire truck full of the stuff. I didn't want to sell it, that's a hassle. But it turns out that Freecycle is run by a bunch of power-mad dicks that rule their little fiefdoms with an iron fist. I was refused entry.

So I dumped it all off at Weird Stuff in one go... they're a store that will recycle most anything electronic for you.

It was more convenient than trying to get the approval to give stuff away to people who needed it.

I was markedly less charitable as a consequence.

That's what I'm talking about.

Message edited by author 2011-02-24 23:27:55.

spiritualspatula

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

02/25/2011 12:04:30 AM · #592

Originally posted by Mousie:

I also figure that it's a group that nags you (I don't necessarily mean that with the negative connotation it traditionally has). It's like having a workout partner. You're a ton more likely to stick to a regimen if you have somebody else you may be letting down.
The difference, as noted, is that atheists aren't this cohesive group that assembles and crochets together or whatever else it is assumed that atheists do together when they congregate beyond not believe in gods.

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

02/25/2011 01:14:29 AM · #593

I really don't even know how to respond. You guys are in such a different place that I don't speak the language.

spiritualspatula

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

02/25/2011 01:55:39 AM · #594

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I really don't even know how to respond. You guys are in such a different place that I don't speak the language.

Another explanation of the sort of thing I'm talking about-
Why do we join DPC? Because we like photography. Joining DPC also influences us and encourages us to participate more in photography as an activity. If there was a hypothetical "atheists charity assembly" it would have the same push as a group of religious adherents whose tenants endorse charity. It's an affirmation as well as a pressure. You're encouraged to donate time and money just as you're encouraged to enter challenges here and share photos.

raish

Olympus C-2500L

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

02/25/2011 03:08:13 AM · #595

As to what informs morality, also for those who don't think it's God, I answered the question. This thread is now about something else.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

02/25/2011 05:01:46 AM · #596

Originally posted by raish:

As to what informs morality, also for those who don't think it's God, I answered the question. This thread is now about something else.

Can't say that I agree with the premise of your argument.

Ray

raish

Olympus C-2500L

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

02/25/2011 06:32:17 AM · #597

Ah. Begs the question of mores synonymity with morality, and synonymous they are not, but in what I perceive as an absence of consensus as to what we are talking about when we say moral, then mores as 'any given society's particular norms, virtues, or values' works well enough, I think.

I'm a fair way out of my depth with mirror neurons, but I heard about them with reference to a lack of empathy or social adjustment in institutionalised Romanian orphans. The idea is that these children lacked adult presence from which to learn behaviour. In whom to see reflected their own behaviour, maybe.

There is a tendency to experience what your audience experiences, which is why it's easier to perform without an audience.

So there's the basis of an argument for morality being learned from those with whom we interact.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

02/25/2011 11:37:24 AM · #598

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I really don't even know how to respond. You guys are in such a different place that I don't speak the language.

Do you really give 10% of your income to charity? I'm impressed if you do.

I think that for most people, after tax, housing, food, utilities and other essentials, then disposable income is a relatively low proportion of salary. The 0.4% figure isn't entirely clear - but it seems to relate to total household expenditure (which might exclude tax, but maybe not housing, and probably not other essentials).

Given the relatively high cost of housing (especially in the UK compared to the US) the figures don't surprise me. If the average age of a first house buyer is creeping towards 40, then I can understand why charitable donation will be modest. What's reassuring to me (and what seems to imply a common morality) is that people seem generally to want to give regardless of their own personal circumstances.

02/25/2011 01:13:38 PM · #599

Originally posted by Matthew:

Given the relatively high cost of housing (especially in the UK compared to the US) the figures don't surprise me. If the average age of a first house buyer is creeping towards 40, then I can understand why charitable donation will be modest. What's reassuring to me (and what seems to imply a common morality) is that people seem generally to want to give regardless of their own personal circumstances.

Here's my 0.02, and I hope this doesn't sound like preaching because I know I would be the last person in the world you guys would want to listen to. Giving has to be a conscious decision or mindset. I agree with spatula or mousie in some regard. If you are waiting for the person to stand in front of you with the bag open or are waiting for the moment when all your "wants" are satisfied and then give out of your extra cash, it ain't gonna happen. You have to decide to give and you have to decide to give even if you "want" something else (because there is always something else to want). These facts of life (inertia and want) are universal and do not follow any creed or lack thereof.

I'm sure most people, if not all people, would consider giving to be good. But putting that into action takes someone who has motivated themselves to do so. And to take the good parts of Louis' video, we all have that capability.

The bad news about the 0.4% is there was another graph which indicated that average household giving was about two pounds a week. TWO POUNDS!

Message edited by author 2011-02-25 13:15:25.

Mousie