Wednesday, June 27, 2007


'Fr*ming Science' is a lot like UD to me. I cant read one damn article without getting annoyed. This time hes trying to tie atheism in with this survey that says:

Atheists and agnostics emerged as the segment of people least likely to do anything in response to poverty. They were less likely to engage in eight of the nine specific responses measured, and were the faith segment least likely to participate in eight of the nine responses evaluated.
Well, the fact that this is one of the most poorly worded sentences Ive read since I quit TAing about 6 years ago was my first clue that this 'study' was ever-so-slightly less than reliable. I attempted to find their exact findings by clicking on a link that read:
To read about the relationship between faith and a response to poverty, click here
Go ahead. Click there. I shall wait.


Uh huh. Think like Jesus, people. Think like Jesus. I completely trust the findings of this 'study.'

I think these were the nine questions:
  • giving material resources (such as clothing or furniture) directly to poor people
  • donating money to organizations that address poverty
  • giving food directly to a poor person or family
  • spending a "significant amount of time" praying for poor people
  • donating time to personally serve needy people in the community
  • visiting institutionalized elderly or sick people who are not family members
  • donating money to organizations that address poverty in foreign countries
  • serving as a tutor or friend to an underprivileged child
  • helping to build or restore a house for a poor family
That is a retarded survey. We're talking Psych 101 'intro to surveys'-- youd get a C on that. Tops. And these are supposedly professionals. Lets knock out an easy one first, how many atheists were surveyed in the first place? Hmm-- no answer? No break-down of stats at all? Did you get a representative sample? How am I supposed to know?

Then we get to the retardation. 'Care more about the poor.' Lets see, give $5 to The Church, knock out a couple of those. Donate a can of corn and an old pair of shoes at Thanksgiving, knock out a couple more. Dont know why the prey, I mean, pray thing isnt 100%, but spend 30 minutes caroling at a retirement home over Christmas, knock that one out...

And then theres the simple fact that Church help isnt in any way 'helping'. They ask for souls before help is rendered. They lie and call that 'helping'. Commit cultural genocide and call them 'charitable missions.' They pocket donated money, spend a percentage on shit, and call it 'helping.' Faith-based 'help' is like Horowitz's 'help.' A bigger mess for me to clean up.

Gee what takes more time, effort, and caring? Playing checkers with an elderly woman once a year because your youth group leader arranges a day and pressures you into doing it, or taking the time to rescue a troubled dog and taking him to training classes for a year to get him certified to be a therapy dog so you can visit the elderly and sick children all the time-- of your own volition? Both just check off one 'caring about the impoverished' item on that checklist.

I mean honestly. How insulting can you get, fr*mer? Degrading my efforts with some radical Christian apologetics piece.

'We need leaders we need leaders whine whine whine!!!' No. I dont need Dawkins or Paul Kurtz to tell me to collect canned goods for a local food pantry. Neither do you. Neither does any other atheist on this planet. There are a billion organizations out there that have secular agendas that you can donate your time and money to. Do it. Stop writing dumb articles that enable, once again, bad theistic behaviors.

Whats this study say to me? These assholes need peer pressure to give fake help to 'Think Like Jesus' and they still have to put out shitty surveys to make one another feel good. Oooh yeah. I wanna be just like them.


Andrew Staroscik said...

A bit of a tangent but every year I read stats about how much more generous religious people are but the charitable giving statistics includes tithing to their own church. I've often wondered how the balance would change if that category was removed 'cause that does not count to me.

Kristjan Wager said...

Is there any excuse that Nisbet won't use to attack Dawkins?

When he and Mooney first came out with their ideas, I thought that they might bring something to the table, but at this point Nesbit is making himself more and more irrelevant.

Mooney still has something to offer, as long as he keeps Nisbet out of it.

John said...

I had to do a double-take after reading your first sentence as follows:

"Fr*ming Science is a lot like ED to me."

Tyler DiPietro said...

Nisbet's credibility has long been in the shitter as far as I'm concerned. This only reinforces that which does not need reinforcement.

Dr. Duke said...

The survey said nothing about athiests as far as I could see. It seemed to be just polling born-again Christians vs other Christians.

But I agree with you, the poll is very lame. What if one group only gives once a year but gives 40% of their income, while another group of people gives every week but only gives 10% of their income?

And what of someone who gives 10% of his income to a church while cheating on taxes, or in some way paying less than a fair share of taxes (using legal loopholes etc)?

ERV said...

Its offensive, plain and simple. The way certain kinds of theists flaunt their 'charity', the way Nisbet degraded the efforts and sensibilities of atheists and agnostics... ugh.

Dr. Duke said...

David Sloan Wilson is Distinguished Professor of Biology and Anthropology at Binghamton University in New York.

In this MP3, he is interviewed for CBC in Canada. He seems to have a different idea about religion vs evolution than Dawkins.

Austin Cline said...

Nisbet wrote a follow-up post here:

I commented, but curiously it isn't showing up. I wonder if he's blocking it because I'm pointing out a dishonest tactic he is using. I hope you don't mind if I post my comment here, so at least some people will see it:

Ah, I see you are using that ever-popular framing tactic of only presenting one side. Unfortunately, this is also one of the less honest tactics in framing. If you had chosen a more fair approach, you'd have linked to Eddie Tabash's response:

I actually agree more with Grothe and Dacey (yes, there were two authors), but when I wrote about the issue I made sure I linked to and quoted both sides:

I also pointed out why I think Tabash had a legitimate argument. It may not be technically correct to use the label "civil rights movement," but given the widespread distrust, dislike, bigotry, and even discrimination, it's not at all difficult to understand why people would be drawn to it.

ERV said...

hehehe Dr. Dukes link

Thanks! I shall watch it tonight!

Austin-- Yeah, I saw that. I quite literally vomited. Before I was confused. Now I am repulsed.