Talk:Atheism and uncharitableness

From Conservapedia

unlock this article so I can add a template to it--  Deborah (contributions) (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

donations

Perhaps it should be noted that some of the most liberal and atheistic countries in the world, eg north-western Europe, are some of the worlds largest aid donors, source and by some measure, are considered the most charitable nations on the international level source. And while some of these nations have a well developed social security system, still spend a signigicant amount of money on charity, in the Netherlands, for example, private citizens spend, in relative terms, about a 1/3 of what US citizens spend on charity source ABunny 21:18, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

I agree. My homecountry, Norway, is mainly populated by atheistic/agnostic social liberals, and gives some of the largest amounts of donations per capita in the world. Efloean 15:51, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

also does this include donations directly to churchs

That's a valid question. If this data includes money given to churches, it invalidates the argument. Who would consider membership dues, even if voluntary, charity? It would be nice if the wiki clarified. It's also curious that the wiki considers only monetary donations as charity. I am currently too poor to give any of my money away, but I did just finish serving a year in the AmeriCorps. However, this wiki, as is, would not consider that charity.

But the money that goes to churches goes to help the needy, while many charities, even non-profits, take most of the donations and use them for their own operating costs. So not only are Christians more giving, but their donations are used more effectively.--FredCorps 10:38, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Fred, you yourself have just drawn a distinction yourself between "churches" and "charities". Also, churches spend large amounts of their collections to maintain and expand facilities, organize events, publish newsletters, supply classrooms, and so on. The church members themselves certainly benefit from those expenditures, and they cannot therefore be considered charity in the strictest sense. I do not know whether the cited statistics include church giving or not, but would be interested to know.--Webbpa 16:21, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

You'd be surprised how many of those things you list that churches supposedly spend their money on are actually done by members at no charge to the church. Jinx McHue 16:32, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

Additionally, expensive projects such as remodeling and additions are typically paid for by church members above and beyond their usual tithing. For example, my church paved their parking a while back and members pledged to pay for it with donations specifically for the project. (And lo and behold, God blessed our faithful giving through the state generously compensating the church for major roadwork being done nearby.) You see, if you actually researched the issue, most churches have specific rules for what can and cannot be done with tithes and some churches (like mine) even allow members to have control over what tithes are used for. Jinx McHue 16:52, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

Picture

Hey, I was just link-surfing and I came upon this page. I noticed the picture of two un-named (presumably poor) children. In my personal opinion, the photo has very little to do with the article. The article concerns atheists, not poor people. Perhaps a different photo would be better? Luminite2 22:47, 9 April 2009 (EDT)