[–] [deleted] 14 points 49 points (+63|-14) ago 

[Deleted]

2
15

[–] CobraStallone 2 points 15 points (+17|-2) ago 

Yeah, just world fallacy for starters. If a kid's poor, or ugly, or different or whatever, and you believe in a morality driven narrative about how everyone get's what they deserve, there's no reason to be kind or compassionate, God gave them that situation for a reason presumably.

20
3

[–] Kaizervonmaanen 20 points 3 points (+23|-20) ago 

while atheists believe that they have to help their fellow man because there's nothing greater to help them.

If that was the case then they would give to charity, which they rarely do. Unless they are filthy rich like Bill Gates.

I think religious kids are harsher because they have a moral dicipline they follow and expectations that other people hold a certain standard.

5
29

[–] Iforgotmy_other_acct 5 points 29 points (+34|-5) ago 

I went to Catholic school for 9 years - kindergarten through 8th grade. Morally disciplined is not a phrase I would choose to describe my classmates (or myself, for that matter), back then. I think the term you're looking for is sheltered.

5
14

[–] destinthegreat 5 points 14 points (+19|-5) ago 

If that was the case then they would give to charity, which they rarely do.

No offense buts thats a large broad statement. Do you have any source for that?

2
1

[–] guinness2 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago 

If that was the case then they would give to charity, which they rarely do.

Do you realize that most church donations go into the pockets of the clergy and their family of "helpers" and pay for church maintenance and pay for lawyers to defend pedophile priests, right?

0
0

[–] blackguard19 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Even as a basic atheist I agree with what you said. I think the higher standard I hold people to is in fact due in some part to my religious upbringing. As far as the charity contributions go, I would believe that too but it's easy to see why religious people give more because a. They do it so often as a group activity and are coerced to do it, I'm not saying this is bad but it's true and b. There are a lot fewer charities that an atheist would seem worthy of contribution because so many of them are religious too. But you make good points. I feel even atheists in America should acknowledge the good about our country's main religion.

4
2

[–] maxoverdrive 4 points 2 points (+6|-4) ago 

You mean they're fucking dipshits who still believe in a version of Santa Claus well into adulthood. Yeppers, I'm sure that does wonders for the disadvantaged in life....

1
0

[–] rwbj 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I think there's something to be said about the difference in having morals/ethics 'taught' to you and actually thinking about things yourself. If you ask many religious individuals why they would not do something, the answer often goes back to because their religion says not to. That is the most backwards logic ever. Are they thus saying that if their religion didn't have condemnations against rape, they'd be a rapist? The answer to that is obviously no for the most part, but actually thinking about why society has the values that it does instead of "because my religion book told me so" is certainly going to create a far more in depth understanding and presumably empathetic relationship with the values of society.

Another big issue with religion is that, though they may deny it at first, many religious individuals seem to have a belief that good things only happen to good people and bad things only happen to bad people. This is why things like the premature death of a loved one or a school bus of children or whatever often sparks a crisis of faith for these people. So a CEO or politician screwing over a country for profit can justify their actions to themselves because if god didn't approve of what they were doing, surely he wouldn't have laid such bountiful blessings upon their life - right? John Boehner, a devout catholic, announced his retirement from congress literally the day after the pope came to visit congress and largely admonished our political and economic system. I have 0 doubt prior to that visit he was constantly convincing himself he was in his god's good graces by this sort of logic.

0
19

[–] 51rH0n3y84d93r 0 points 19 points (+19|-0) ago 

"In our sample, 23.9% of households identified as Christian" I don't see any explanation as to if there was a denomination breakdown. Interestingly Islam ranked lower. Unfortunately the sample size was too small for analysis of any other religion.

Locations studied: "Chicago (USA), Toronto (Canada), Amman (Jordan), Izmir and Istanbul (Turkey), Cape Town (South Africa), and Guangzhou (China)."

Method for study: "To examine the influence of religion on the expression of altruism, we used a resource allocation task, the dictator game..." Without digging too much into the study, I'm not sure how I feel about altruism being measured from such a game. Perhaps someone who works on studies similar to this can chime in as my field doesn't focus on child psychology.

Full study link: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%2815%2901167-7

6
13

[–] Victus_ 6 points 13 points (+19|-6) ago 

Chicago. They picked Chicago. Come try a city in the South of the US. See how chivalrous people actually can be.

5
3

[–] Germanic_Confederate 5 points 3 points (+8|-5) ago  (edited ago)

Exactly. Between Cape Town and Chicago I'm betting the majority of 'Christians' were blacks that spend their days rapping about rape, drugs, and murder. Yeah. Good way to load your study.

0
1

[–] pray_the_gay_away 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

too fat to be chivalrous down there. If you follow the golden rule, but your treat yourself like shit, you will treat others like shit too.

That's why I say follow the platinum rule: treat other's 20% better than you treat yourself to make up for any discrepancies.

0
7

[–] LoyalSol 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

There are too many variables to really claim this is definitive for anything really.

0
1

[–] littlemiss 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Yeah. Shame the study isn't of a wider group. And I would be interested to see the generosity of the parents. I assume generous parents (regardless of religion) raise generous kids. Maybe the real correlation is religious adults are less generous.

4
18

[–] FidgetyImp 4 points 18 points (+22|-4) ago 

soooo, i am guessing that this is just one more 'study' that is doing nothing more than grabbing a dick with each hand and joining the same old tired and drawn out anti religion / anti atheism circle jerk? Fuck this study, fuck the circle jerk. People need to take a step back and realise that none of this shit actually matters. Not a fucking ounce of it.

[–] [deleted] 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago 

[Deleted]

2
7

[–] FidgetyImp 2 points 7 points (+9|-2) ago 

Nah, i'm just as dumb as everyone else. I'm just sick and tired of being poked and told to hate / dislike / get all pissed about everybody around me by all the various 'studies' and talking heads and politicians and social commentators, etc. The fact is that the great majority of folks if left to themselves will probably get along just fine and figure out their differences without being fucktards. The problem arrives when you get people who benefit from chaos and people fighting one another. And today, there seems to be a lot to gain from all of this bullshit. Hence you can't go 5 minutes without hearing about how group A is your worst enemy and how group B is so subhuman and just needs you to hate them and how group C wants to take your children and eat them. It's horseshit. So many people today are acting the way they do because they have been told to. Because they have bought into a system that tells them they should be angry and then tells them what to be angry about and then feeds on the resulting turmoil. If you look at them all. The racists, the SJW's, the feminazis, the rampant liberals, the rampant conservatives. All of these angry people with such clearly defined and hostilely defended ideologies. They are all broken individuals who have bought into a lie. I feel sorry for them. Their lives are just filled with unending rage, it's fucked up and sad. So much life, time and potential human experience wasted on what ultimately boils down to utter horse shit. None of it really matters and ultimately all of your rage and effort is only there to benefit the parasites who thrive on a world of chaos. I don't want any part of that. Bollocks to it.

Basically I think folks should put more effort into figuring out how to live their lives more along the lines of Aristotle's 'golden mean', rather than waste time and effort commiting intellectual incest in the fringes of the ever increasing number of 'social ideologies'.

1
9

[–] BistroPalin 1 points 9 points (+10|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Here is the actual study.

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)01167-7.pdf

According to the actual study, they tossed out all religions other than Christian and Muslim. They also totally fail to define in a reproducible manner which groups they labelled as low in religiosity. Atheist and agnostic probably, but that's a guess. Was "no response" also in this category? What about "unaffiliated"? Why were the results on Buddhists, Jainists, Jews, Hindus and non-monotheistic religions suppressed? Were the numbers too small for comparison? Were the numbers of Buddhists and Hindus really lower than the number of declared atheists? We don't know because this "study" doesn't show their actual methodology.

I am not surprised and don't contest that Muslims and Christians are more capricious and judgmental than those with "low religiosity". I would be surprised if Buddhists really are, yet the oregonlive article mentions Buddhists in the context of religious people, then totally fails to mention that the study decided to remove them from the results they reported.

0
2

[–] TelescopiumHerscheli 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I've met hardcore Buddhists and Hindus, and they're just as nasty as the hardcore Christians and Muslims. Hell, I've even met a hardcore Wiccan, and she was as nasty a piece of work as any girl I've ever met.

4
9

[–] Victus_ 4 points 9 points (+13|-4) ago 

0
2

[–] svipbo 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Not surprising when churches have charity status. This is misleading:

Utah is also known for its large population of Mormons, whose church asks them to give at least 10 percent of their income to charity.

"Charity." Actually, it's a tithe, given to the Mormon church itself. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/mormon/customs/tithing.shtml

Tithing is the custom by which members give one-tenth of their annual income to the Church. It provides the main source of Church income.

0
0

[–] CatNamedJava 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

That id becsude church goers count membership fees and service fees as donation

4
-1

[–] Al_Rubyx 4 points -1 points (+3|-4) ago 

That article sucks. It says "poor people give more to charity than rich people. Here's person that thinks that church attendance is the reason so we're gonna title the article after that."

0
7

[–] Moosh_Banger 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

People that take these kind of 'studies' seriously are morons.

0
5

[–] Zbruh 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

From Oregon Live?

My bias detector is losing it's shit.

1
5

[–] lissencarak 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

Interesting. Then why do religious people give more to charity?

2
2

[–] cynoclast 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago 

Because they consider tithing to be charity.

0
2

[–] lissencarak 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

It's a lot easier to be a bad Christian than not pay your taxes.

3
-1

[–] guinness2 3 points -1 points (+2|-3) ago 

FTFY: Because they consider funding church lawyers to defend child molesting priests to be charity.

load more comments ▼ (25 remaining)