What Atheists Should Learn From Religion

04/26/2012 03:04:49 PM · #301

dup

Message edited by author 2012-04-26 15:05:44.

04/26/2012 03:05:24 PM · #302

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well hit me with the data Paul instead of making claims out of thin air...

These seem to be only 2-3 years old ...

10 Leading Causes of Bankruptcy
Originally posted by cited article:
Medical Expenses (42%)

Recent studies have shown that 42% of all personal bankruptcies are a result of medical expenses. The study also reveals that 78% of those who filed had insurance.

Job Loss (22%)

Millions of Americans are unemployed, which makes them much more likely to file for bankruptcy. Unemployed individuals often pay for insurance out-of-pocket.

Uncontrolled Spending (15%)

Credit card bills, large mortgages, and expensive car payments contribute to bankruptcy. Uncontrolled spending habits can put Americans on a path to filing.

OK -- medical expenses are the primary cause of *only* 42%, but note that a total of nearly 85% are due to circumstances largely beyond the debtor's control, and only about 15% due to profligate spending.

Top 5 Reasons Why People Go Bankrupt
Originally posted by Cited Article:
The bankruptcy statistics in America are alarming. The past few decades have seen a dramatic rise in the number of people that are unable to pay off their debts, and Congress has recently addressed the issue with legislation that makes it harder to qualify for this status. Following is a list of the most common causes of bankruptcy in America today.

1. Medical Expenses

A study done at Harvard University indicates that this is the biggest cause of bankruptcy, representing 62% of all personal bankruptcies. One of the interesting caveats of this study shows that 78% of filers had some form of health insurance, thus bucking the myth that medical bills affect only the uninsured.

Well, I guess some variation in how various studies acquire and report results should be expected ... whatever, there seems to be no controversy that runaway medical expenses are far and away the leading cause of bankruptcies, not "excessive" spending, at least among those who don't have $50,000 credit card limits ...

For somparison, What Are the Causes of Bankrupcy in Canada?
Originally posted by Cited Article:
The last on our list of leading causes of bankruptcy in Canada, are medical problems; they often can and do lead to a lot of financial problems. Fortunately, in Canada most of our medical expenses, such as hospital care, are covered by the government, unlike in the United States where medical bills for uninsured Americans are a leading cause of bankruptcy in America.

Better numbers. Of course one could ask how many of those 22% who lost their job had any sort of savings to fall back on, etc. I'm not arguing that nobody has ever declared bankruptcy or has credit card debt even though they have lived a reasonable lifestyle. I'm saying it is plainly obvious that there is TOO MUCH credit card debt and that even if only a portion of this is due to excessive spending it is still TOO MUCH.

A medical expense may teeter you into bankruptcy, but in many cases you were on the brink already just barely getting by because of personal choices like not having any sort of backup plan in case the unexpected happened. One thing you can expect is the unexpected.

I guess you missed the link I posted... but a new study done by Harvard University suggests that more than 62% of all personal bankruptcies are caused by the cost of over-whelming medical expenses.

//www.giveforward.com/blog/medical-expenses-top-cause-of-bankruptcy-in-the-united-states

Message edited by author 2012-04-26 15:07:36.

04/26/2012 04:08:02 PM · #303

Originally posted by Kelli:

I didn't miss it. I saw 60%, but there are two important points. 1) it's not 90% (so we can back away from that), and 2) just because you have medical expenses doesn't mean it's the sole cause of your bankruptcy. In these studies if 10% of your income was medical debt then they counted it. Do you think it's reasonable to declare bankruptcy for a debt of $5,000 if you make $50,000 a year? I don't and I doubt many would. But you then add your $15,000 in credit card debt, your underwater mortgage and your student loans and now you are in a world of hurt. But are we now going to declare it was the medical bill's fault for your misfortune?

From the center it looks like the left thinks there's no such thing as "personal responsibility" and the right doesn't seem to understand that bad things happen to good people. Both are unreasonable positions.

Message edited by author 2012-04-26 16:09:07.

04/26/2012 04:41:34 PM · #304

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Kelli:
I guess you missed the link I posted... but a new study done by Harvard University suggests that more than 62% of all personal bankruptcies are caused by the cost of over-whelming medical expenses.

//www.giveforward.com/blog/medical-expenses-top-cause-of-bankruptcy-in-the-united-states

I didn't miss it. I saw 60%, but there are two important points. 1) it's not 90% (so we can back away from that), and 2) just because you have medical expenses doesn't mean it's the sole cause of your bankruptcy. In these studies if 10% of your income was medical debt then they counted it. Do you think it's reasonable to declare bankruptcy for a debt of $5,000 if you make $50,000 a year? I don't and I doubt many would. But you then add your $15,000 in credit card debt, your underwater mortgage and your student loans and now you are in a world of hurt. But are we now going to declare it was the medical bill's fault for your misfortune?

From the center it looks like the left thinks there's no such thing as "personal responsibility" and the right doesn't seem to understand that bad things happen to good people. Both are unreasonable positions.

First off, you cannot bankrupt student loans. Can't be done. Second, did you actually read that article? These are people that did plan, people with medical insurance. Don't try to play the middle card on this one. When you live paycheck to paycheck, and you have medical insurance you think you're covered. But the honest truth is you're not. There will always be denials of coverage as long as the system stays broken. Even if only 10% of bankruptcies were caused by medical expenses, that's too many.

//www.pnhp.org/news/2011/march/massachusetts-reform-hasnt-stopped-medical-bankruptcies-harvard-study

Message edited by author 2012-04-26 16:47:51.

04/26/2012 04:44:27 PM · #305

Originally posted by Kelli:

That's fine and good. If 10% are caused by medical expenses I think that's too many as well, but it doesn't speak at all to the question at hand which is, does $770 billion in credit card debt represent a society out of control with spending. Do you think it's excessive for our society to have that much credit card debt?

Let's say 1 in 6 bankruptcies comes from people spending too much. Does that represent a society of excess?

Message edited by author 2012-04-26 16:56:27.

04/26/2012 04:56:39 PM · #306

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Kelli:
First off, you cannot bankrupt student loans. Can't be done. Second, did you actually read that article? These are people that did plan, people with medical insurance. Don't try to play the middle card on this one. When you live paycheck to paycheck, and you have medical insurance you think you're covered. But the honest truth is you're not. There will always be denials of coverage as long as the system stays broken. Even if only 10% of bankruptcies were caused by medical expenses, that's too many.

That's fine and good. If 10% are caused by medical expenses I think that's too many as well, but it doesn't speak at all to the question at hand which is, does $770 billion in credit card debt represent a society out of control with spending. Do you think it's excessive for our society to have that much credit card debt?

No one in their right mind would say it wasn't excessive. But, you do need to quantify the amounts with the whys. Why do people use credit? Some use it to buy food, because they'd go hungry if they didn't. Some use it to pay bills, such as their utilities that would have been shut off otherwise. Some use it to pay their rent so they don't have to live on the streets. Some use it for medical bills/procedures that are not covered but necessary. Some use it to buy the medications they need to continue living. Some use it to buy large screen tv's, just because they can. But I really don't think you can take a total number and say which part is the larger. Are they using it out of necessity or using it for pleasure? Credit was freely handed out by the banks. Those in real need took advantage to get what they needed. When my in-laws died they owed over $45k in medical bills on their credit cards. The companies came after the children. Luckily there were some of us smart enough to know you are not responsible for someone else's debt.

04/26/2012 05:53:54 PM · #307

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Take home message. If you do not have personal experience you "wouldn't know". Remind me to bring that up next time you wade in on God or Christianity. You seem to "know" plenty in that arena and you have little current personal experience there. :P Your answer is completely disingenuous ("not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.") Ray, and you "know it".

...and pray tell who said I had no experience and wouldn't know. I may not have debt at this juncture, but can assure you that such was not always the case. I do know some things about money and how to deal with financial issues and strive to assist those around me who might not know of such things.

It may come as a shock to you DOc, but I do donate a rather substantial portion of my earnings to facilities such as the Childrens' Hospital, the United Way, the Salvation Army and other charitable organizations. In addition, I volunteer a great deal of time assisting the less fortunate.

Regarding the God and Christianity issue, who says I have little current personal experience... that my friend is mere supposition on your part. Besides, would you not agree that the basic tenets of the church have for the most part remained rather constant over the years... or maybe I should ask

Nullix that question since he is still a devout Catholic.

I guess we would all be better off if we simply shed all of our worldly possession and sought salvation... yep I hear that solves everything.

Ray

Message edited by author 2012-04-26 17:55:39.

04/26/2012 06:11:45 PM · #308

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

...Let's say 1 in 6 bankruptcies comes from people spending too much. Does that represent a society of excess?

In all likelihood the answer to that would be a resounding YES.

Having said that, one must look at cause and effect, as well as the unbelievable expectations that many people have.

I see oodles of young people who truly expect to get very high paying jobs immediately after completing college. Similarly, I know all sorts of people who readily confuse "Needs" with "Wants" and earnestly believe that they simply cannot live without (Enter the product of your choice here)

Times have changed enormously in the last 50 or 60 years and the thought of saving your money until you can actually purchase a product is not something that prevails today.

Perhaps we as parents have failed to educate our children on the value of money and the need to be frugal. When I see the number of credit card companies jostling for position on university campuses, I cringe at what the ensuing results will be.

There is no doubt that excess thrives in North America and other parts of the world...but should the blame rests exclusively with the consumer... for my part, I do believe there is enough blame to go around.

If this does not address the question, do let me know, maybe I can work something out. :O)

Ray

Message edited by author 2012-04-26 18:19:21.

04/26/2012 06:20:05 PM · #309

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

...Let's say 1 in 6 bankruptcies comes from people spending too much. Does that represent a society of excess?

In all likelihood the answer to that would be a resounding YES.

I agree. From Paul's link:

Uncontrolled Spending (15%)

Credit card bills, large mortgages, and expensive car payments contribute to bankruptcy. Uncontrolled spending habits can put Americans on a path to filing.

04/26/2012 07:41:12 PM · #310

I figure this is like senate deliberations and their glacial pace.

Gentlemen! We will now turn to the discussion concerning gravity and whether it is the cause for things falling. We will open discussion for the next three days.

04/27/2012 03:29:35 PM · #311

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Sorry Mousie, you did answer the question. I think I forgot because it was before I started pointedly asking Richard, Paul and Ray (of whom none of the three have given a direct answer). Thanks for being willing to lay it on the line.

Selective memory?

You: If you live with credit card debt and beyond your means, doesn't that mean you live in excess?
Me: Beyond your means? Probably. Living in excess? By who's measure?

You: If you have poor health due to consuming 4,000 calories a day isn't that excess?
Me: It's the lack of exercise that would lead to the poor health, not the number of calories. Athletes are more likely to be on a 4,000 calorie diet than the obese.

You: If we, as a nation, are swimming in $771 billion dollars of credit card debt, I hope you have the common sense to understand that is out of whack with propriety. If you don't, there's no reason to continue the conversation.
Me: What do you want to hear? The number you quoted (i.e. $771.7 billion) seems very high, as in bad.

You: OK Richard, I'll point blank you as well. Do you think $771 billion dollars in credit card debt is reasonable? Yes no, why?
Me now: I haven't answered your last question because I've been too busy and haven't been on the site since the last time I posted. However if you want an answer just look back at my posts above. I've already stated that that number you gave is very high and isn't good. I've already asked you what you think that number should be, but that, like all of the other questions I've asked have been completely ignored. You seem to be on a rant for rant's sake. Logic doesn't follow and when I try to understand your logic (i.e. the basis in which you're judging excess) you get upset, frustrated and you start putting words in my mouth.

Message edited by author 2012-04-27 15:43:05.

04/27/2012 03:40:52 PM · #312

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

...Let's say 1 in 6 bankruptcies comes from people spending too much. Does that represent a society of excess?

In all likelihood the answer to that would be a resounding YES.

I agree. From Paul's link:

Uncontrolled Spending (15%)

Credit card bills, large mortgages, and expensive car payments contribute to bankruptcy. Uncontrolled spending habits can put Americans on a path to filing.

Not that you'll answer this question either, but why are you focused only on personal debt and not also business debt? Both can lead to bankruptcy except that in the case of a business you also have the unfortunate event of every employee losing their jobs.

Message edited by author 2012-04-27 15:41:09.

04/27/2012 04:08:26 PM · #313

Originally posted by yanko:

I got no problem with including that in the exact same category if the same causes came to bear. If the CEO has to have a Rolls and a Lear Jet then it's the same thing writ large.

I'm not sure what gave you the impression that I wouldn't feel that way.

As far as getting frustrated with you, it's only because you can easily miss the forest for the trees. If an athlete needs to eat 4,000 calories because she's running 100 miles a week, do you think that plays any role in the idea that a normal person eating 4,000 calories is one of gluttony and excess? What is the possible benefit of bringing up such an extreme exception except to be cantankerous? Do you honestly think I should reevaluate my position about overeating because of the Iron Man triathlete? The general feeling on Rant sometimes is the idea that if I can bring up some obtuse exception to the rule, the rule is devoid of any use and truth. It's very unintellectual and highly frustrating when trying to hold a decent conversation.

Just to understand your thinking. When the conversation is about societal excess and you bring up the fact that I'm talking about personal excess rather than business excess, what do you think that brings to the conversation? Are you refuting the society excess premise? Are you supporting it? It seems to support the idea that we are a society of excess (in more ways than previously mentioned), but at the same time you seem to want to refute that with your exceptions to the rules above. It's head scratching.

Message edited by author 2012-04-27 16:22:40.

04/27/2012 07:25:58 PM · #314

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

As far as getting frustrated with you, it's only because you can easily miss the forest for the trees. If an athlete needs to eat 4,000 calories because she's running 100 miles a week, do you think that plays any role in the idea that a normal person eating 4,000 calories is one of gluttony and excess? What is the possible benefit of bringing up such an extreme exception except to be cantankerous? Do you honestly think I should reevaluate my position about overeating because of the Iron Man triathlete? The general feeling on Rant sometimes is the idea that if I can bring up some obtuse exception to the rule, the rule is devoid of any use and truth. It's very unintellectual and highly frustrating when trying to hold a decent conversation.

You're still not getting what I said regarding the calorie diet but the point of even mentioning it is because I had thought you were focused on the number of calories not how it's used. In other words, the obese stores more of it as fat where as the athlete's heighten metabolism burns through it. So in other words you're saying excess is only excess if it's not being used right away (or ever). Is that what you're getting at?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Are you refuting the society excess premise? Are you supporting it? It seems to support the idea that we are a society of excess (in more ways than previously mentioned), but at the same time you seem to want to refute that with your exceptions to the rules above. It's head scratching.

I'm not refuting the premise. Saving money is excess. Storing food in a refrigerator is excess. Everyone in this thread lives in excess so it goes without saying that we live in a society of excess. So the question becomes where do we draw the line? At what point does this excess become a problem? Now since you've already concluded that today's level of excess is too much how did you arrive at that conclusion? What evidence do you have that we have crossed the line? Where is the line? That's what I've been trying to get at. Now you've offered up some examples but every time I've asked about them you've been hostile. For example, you said the $771 billion debt was too much, but if it's too much then what number would be more satisfactory? Zero? When I tried to compare the US to the other countries listed in your link you quickly dismissed it as an invalid measure yet didn't offer up an alternative. If there is to be any meaningful dialog some ground rules need to be set. You seem to want to preach but forgot to bring the choir.

Message edited by author 2012-04-27 19:45:08.

04/27/2012 08:09:47 PM · #315

Ok. That's fine. Let's rephrase.

Our society regularly eats more calories than it uses. This has no benefit, but, in fact, is quite harmful. Whether that number is 2,000 or 4,000 or whatever is immaterial. If you are obese because you eat more calories than your lifestyle utilizes, you are eating in excess. Excessive eating is traditionally called gluttony. We, as a nation, have never been fatter in our 200 year history and are among the fattest nations in the world (I don't care what number it is exactly or whether we are #1). This is a bad thing and is a sign of our systemic worship of pleasure regardless of cost. A Frappuchino tastes good. A Big Mac tastes good. A deep fried Snickers bar (probably) tastes good. Eating one is not the end of the world. But when we, as a society, eat like this regularly, it is gluttonous. Can we agree on this? or do you disagree?

Credit card debt is the same. Don't compare us to other countries. Compare us to ourselves. Has our debt ever been higher as a product of absolute dollars or even as a % of our incomes? You bring up two examples (only, I'm sure, because they were the only other two examples on the wiki page) but while you want me to put the number in context you don't do that yourself any more. So we have 3 numbers now. Are they #1, #2, and #3 in the world? How does our credit card debt compare to China? Japan? India? Russia? Germany? Sweden? Nigeria? It means little to me that you provide two other countries that share a common language (and thus have many value and cultural similarities). The idea of credit cards didn't even exist a few generations ago. Why are we dependent on them now?

I'm painting such a stark picture I just can't understand how you get bogged down in little nuances. We have an elephant two inches in front of us and you want to discuss this little patch of skin or that hair before you agree, hey, it's an elephant!

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

04/27/2012 09:52:05 PM · #316

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Our society regularly eats more calories than it uses. This has no benefit, but, in fact, is quite harmful. Whether that number is 2,000 or 4,000 or whatever is immaterial. If you are obese because you eat more calories than your lifestyle utilizes, you are eating in excess. Excessive eating is traditionally called gluttony. We, as a nation, have never been fatter in our 200 year history and are among the fattest nations in the world (I don't care what number it is exactly or whether we are #1). This is a bad thing and is a sign of our systemic worship of pleasure regardless of cost. A Frappuchino tastes good. A Big Mac tastes good. A deep fried Snickers bar (probably) tastes good. Eating one is not the end of the world. But when we, as a society, eat like this regularly, it is gluttonous. Can we agree on this? or do you disagree?

In general I would agree with this, although I would replace "worship of pleasure" with "addiction".

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Credit card debt is the same. Don't compare us to other countries. Compare us to ourselves. Has our debt ever been higher as a product of absolute dollars or even as a % of our incomes? You bring up two examples (only, I'm sure, because they were the only other two examples on the wiki page) but while you want me to put the number in context you don't do that yourself any more. So we have 3 numbers now. Are they #1, #2, and #3 in the world? How does our credit card debt compare to China? Japan? India? Russia? Germany? Sweden? Nigeria? It means little to me that you provide two other countries that share a common language (and thus have many value and cultural similarities). The idea of credit cards didn't even exist a few generations ago. Why are we dependent on them now?

I already admitted that $771 billion is too much debt so I don't understand why you are even wanting to debate this point. All I did was take YOUR numbers and put them in some context so the the three countries in your link could be compared. Now if you don't like how that comparison turned out (i.e. not shocking enough) then offer up some more if it's important to you. Don't ask me to do your work.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm painting such a stark picture I just can't understand how you get bogged down in little nuances.

Seems more like cherry picking the low hanging fruit of a more complex tree, but hey don't let me get in the way of your painting. After all I can't see the forest for the trees so what do I know?

Message edited by author 2012-04-27 21:53:01.

Nullix

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

04/27/2012 10:07:25 PM · #317

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Regarding the God and Christianity issue, who says I have little current personal experience... that my friend is mere supposition on your part. Besides, would you not agree that the basic tenets of the church have for the most part remained rather constant over the years... or maybe I should ask Nullix that question since he is still a devout Catholic.

Yes, the church doesn't change on doctrinal issues, but is free to change on discipline.

However, you have often misinterpreted the church many times. Most problems people have with the church is a misunderstanding. With all your misunderstandings, I dont trust you understanding in the church.

BTW, thank you for your donations to children's hospital. All my children have used their assistance.

04/27/2012 11:08:04 PM · #318

OK, another mini rant from me. I went to my cousin's viewing tonight. There was a Catholic service. The priest did the most bizarre service I've ever encountered (and I've heard quite a few). He explained about how we are still in the time of Easter (resurrection time) and that we should all aspire to be where my cousin now is. Remember, my cousin killed himself. He cried during the service (something I've never, ever seen). It's was quite surreal.

eta: I probably wasn't very clear. To me it seemed the priest was advocating suicide when things seem too tough for you to bear in the earthly realm.

Message edited by author 2012-04-27 23:09:36.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

04/28/2012 06:19:27 AM · #319

Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by RayEthier:
Regarding the God and Christianity issue, who says I have little current personal experience... that my friend is mere supposition on your part. Besides, would you not agree that the basic tenets of the church have for the most part remained rather constant over the years... or maybe I should ask Nullix that question since he is still a devout Catholic.

Yes, the church doesn't change on doctrinal issues, but is free to change on discipline.

However, you have often misinterpreted the church many times. Most problems people have with the church is a misunderstanding. With all your misunderstandings, I dont trust you understanding in the church.

BTW, thank you for your donations to children's hospital. All my children have used their assistance.

I seriously doubt that I am misinterpreting the church, particularly when I consider the number of years I spent in the Jesuit Seminar.

Call me "critical" but I will not agree to the suggestion that I am "misinterpreting" the church.

It could also be argued that you are misunderstanding what you perceive as my misundertanding, which would account for your lack of trust in my understanding of the church. :O)

Ray

Nullix

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

04/29/2012 11:33:55 PM · #320

Originally posted by RayEthier:

I seriously doubt that I am misinterpreting the church, particularly when I consider the number of years I spent in the Jesuit Seminar.

With the claims you make, just a few minutes of research, I have found most of your claims only come from extreme anti-Catholic sites.

04/30/2012 05:26:33 AM · #321

Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

I seriously doubt that I am misinterpreting the church, particularly when I consider the number of years I spent in the Jesuit Seminar.

With the claims you make, just a few minutes of research, I have found most of your claims only come from extreme anti-Catholic sites.

... I have read what you proffer as research and will be kind and refrain from making any additional comments.

Ray

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

05/05/2012 01:48:36 PM · #322

Atheist more compassionate than believers, study finds

Message edited by author 2012-05-05 13:48:54.

Flash

Nikon D700

05/07/2012 12:29:51 PM · #323

Originally posted by yanko:

Atheist more compassionate than believers, study finds

Certainly interesting. Not sure of the evidence, but if the ultra wealthy were athiest/agnostic and one considered their charitable donations versus the "tithe" donated by many believers, then I suppose a case could be made that athiests are more charitable on a per person basis. I suspect however that as a whole community (worldwide) and when considering all donations from all those claiming a religious affilliation (Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddahist, etc etc), then likely the amount donated by religious persons would be substantial.

Would the money donated by a former believer who now is a non-believer, be considered donated by a believer or a non-believer? If they gave to charity before is their current sense of giving due to their now non-believer status or was it ingrained from their former believing - OR - is it simply due to their personal compassion regardless of their religious inclinations?

I think some people are charitable of heart - period. It would be interesting to see what percentage of athiests/agnostics would donate 10% of their income if there was no tax write off for it? It would be interesting to see how many DPCers posting in Rant as athiests/agnostics donate 10% or more. Certainly some do maybe all do? We should probably include time donated for a charitable cause and not just dollars. I would certainly include animal rescue as well.

No I really do not want to know if you donate or how much. That is really between you and your heart. Remember - it is the heart that is judged and the right hand should not know what the left hand is doing - meaning - do your charity is secret.

Message edited by author 2012-05-07 12:48:12.