Faith

Are Atheists More Inclined to Help Their Fellow Man Than Religious People?

Atheists Are More Motivated By Compassion Than Religious People, Study FindsIt’s a finding that most believers will likely find disheartening. Atheists, on the other hand, will certainly relish in the results. According to research published in the July 2012 issue of Social Psychological and Personality Science, atheists are more driven by compassion to help their fellow man than are highly religious individuals.

Robb Willer, a co-author of the study and a social psychologist at the University of California, described the findings in a recently-released statement.

“Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not,” Willer said. “The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or repetitional concerns.”

At the root of the study is the overall question of whether logic, emotion or other factors serve as motivating forces in the decision to help others. But beyond that, the complex nature of religious adherence — or lack thereof — comes into play.

Atheists Are More Motivated By Compassion Than Religious People, Study Finds

It is these elements that served as the focal point for study, which was assembled by Willer and fellow academic Laura Saslow. Saslow says that she began thinking more about these issues after a non-believing friend told her he had donated to a Haiti relief project after viewing a moving video clip. Curious about what was driving this act of giving, Saslow set in motion with her team to better understand these elements through scientific inquiry.

LiveScience.com explains the study’s methodology and phases:

In the first study, Saslow and her colleagues analyzed data from a national survey of more than 1,300 American adults taken in 2004. They found that compassionate attitudes were linked with how many generous behaviors a person was likely to report. But this link was strongest in people who were atheists or only slightly religious, compared with people who were more strongly religious. [8 Ways Religion Impacts Your Life]

In a second experiment, 101 adults were shown either a neutral video or an emotional video about children in poverty. They were then given 10 fake dollars and told they could give as much as they liked to a stranger. Those who were less religious gave more when they saw the emotional video first. [...]

Finally, a sample of more than 200 college students reported their current level of compassion and then played economic games in which they were given money to share or withhold from a stranger. Those who were the least religious but most momentarily compassionate shared the most.

It was from these experiments that the results were derived.

“Overall, this research suggests that although less religious people tend to be less trusted in the U.S., when feeling compassionate, they may actually be more inclined to help their fellow citizens than more religious people,” Willer alleged.

While atheists may jump for joy over the prospect that they are seemingly more compassionate than believers, more research is needed to understand this disparity. As in all human behavior findings, there are likely factors that are unseen laying at the root of religious peoples’ giving — factors that will need deeper exploration.

(H/T: LiveScience.com)

Comments (203)

1 2 3 ... 5
  • Simonne
    Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:46pm

    This study is questionable as all of the studies I read about showed conservatives gives more than liberals.

    Report Post »  
    • theninthplanet
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 7:00pm

      Wasn’t their money. Liberals like to spend other people’s money. Conservatives don’t. Case closed.

      Report Post » theninthplanet  
    • Pelling1020
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 7:24pm

      First off, there are a great more religious folks than athiests. So yes religious people are more prone to help others. Check out St. John of the Cross and Mother Teresa’s last read diary. They had dark periods where God was missing, but they carried on. The tide turns always.

      Report Post »  
    • cfreedom
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 7:42pm

      I agree, if atheists have to see a video in order to feel compasonate and give, what about the rest of the days and poor. Christian organations give constantly. For example Christian Organizations were allready in Haiti helping the poor long before the disaster. Aparently atheists have to have a reason to help where the rest of us give regulary so these Christian organizations can count on having the money and resorces they need. How many atheists went to Louisana right after the Hurricane with enough people to actually help. The organized church is a group of people. groups of people can be more helpful then individuals. They need to do a more comprehensive study. Catholic Charities, for example, and i know other Chistian Organizations are always there for people that need help,unwed mothers, orphans, poor, immigrants, and they can count on Christians giving regualry not just when they see vidios.

      Report Post » cfreedom  
    • lukerw
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 7:43pm

      Atheists MUST give because of a sense of PRIDE… NOT because of MORALITY!

      Report Post » lukerw  
    • HappyStretchedThin
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 8:07pm

      This study demonstrates a few things the authors DON’T want to admit:
      1. For all their talk of being driven solely by reason, atheists are surprisingly prone to act on emotion.
      2. Religious people (come on, let’s be straight with each other: this is code for Christian) don’t name compassion when self-reporting reasons for giving because they have a wider vocabulary and more experience with the phenomenon. Atheists, on the other hand, only use the phrase “human compassion”, because it‘s all that’s left when the higher power can no longer be cited as a source of compassionate feelings (which He is!).
      3. When non-believer scientists try to boil down doctrinal differences between believers into a scale of “more or less religious”, their lack of understanding of doctrine leads to such completely confusing conflations of cause and effect that they end up concluding the opposite of what common sense and observation tell us is true: Christians give more, give more frequently, and give more consistently whether or not they claim compassion as their main motivator.
      Some social scientists make me laugh with their attempts to nail the proverbial jello to a tree. If the question is about human motivations for benevolence, their only hope at accuracy would be to attempt actually BELIEVING Christianity…Hard to understand it when you begin with the premise that it’s a myth.
      Silly scientists…

      Report Post » HappyStretchedThin  
    • tzion
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 8:07pm

      Here’s what I got out of this: atheists give because they feel sorry for the person, religious people give even when they don’t feel sorry. Religious people see charity as more of an obligation than a mercy. The poll only sounds critical of religion when they phrase it the way they did.

      Report Post »  
    • tommyB
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 8:23pm

      I can publish a study that proves pencil shavings can cure cancer too.

      Report Post »  
    • jhaydeng
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 8:45pm

      I love these psychological studies! What better way than to compartmentalize society than to do studies that make a certain group feel out of the norm because a psychologist arrives at a specific “finding” to make it so! Bunk!

      Report Post »  
    • From Virginia
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 8:50pm

      It’s a lie. An atheist did this study for his college thesis. Something he collected the data for over 10 years and found that Christians were far more generous than atheists.

      No surprise to me at all..

      Report Post »  
    • kaydeebeau
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 9:05pm

      My first thoughts are these… perhaps the athieists are more prone to brag about their charity to somehow attempt to make themselves appear good and moral …which is funny ’cause how does one define good or moral without the steadfast standard of God? Good or moral as compared to what? Adolf Hitler or Mother Teresa? So compared to Adolf Hitler I am good but compared to Mother Teresa I am not? This is fair and just how?

      Here is fair and just… compared to God, none of us are good. We are all doomed to separation from the Holy Eternal One because we cannot be good enough (when the standard is the Perfect Eternal One) But because He loves us so much (we are His greatest creation) and wants to have a relationship with us, He makes a way for us to be right with Him. So He sent His Son to be the subsititute for our failures (sin). Since the penalty for sin is death, His Son, took our punishment so that we do not have to die for our crimes against God (and be eternally separated from Him)

      He died freely for us. All we have to do is accept the gift, admit we fall short of His glory (standard) and receive the promise He gives.

      Report Post » kaydeebeau  
    • survivorseed
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 9:36pm

      Of course its true, another pointless study to find out something we already knew

      Report Post »  
    • soap on a rope
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 11:13pm

      It is possible to be conservative-leaning and an atheist.

      Report Post »  
    • Darlie
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 11:58pm

      There are lies, da–ed lies and statistics. Mark Twain

      Report Post »  
    • Shiroi Raion
      Posted on May 2, 2012 at 12:17am

      I‘m a Conservative leaning atheist and I don’t buy this study. These pseudo-scientists (social scientists) are constantly manipulating the data or translating it in such a way that it always reinforces their ideology. Social science isn’t science at all. It‘s social studies and it’s VERY rare that social scientists or professors are honest and objective. From my experience in college, and the books they had us read… their agendas seem to always take priority. It’s far too simple to manipulate data or to force or perceive the outcomes in order to support your desired hypotheses in the social studies. That‘s why I don’t consider it true science such as (the hard sciences) chemistry, astronomy, biology, etc…
      Believe it if you want to, or like me, an as I said I’m an atheist, be VERY skeptical of any social study.
      I was always generous when I had money… but I don’t think atheism had anything to do with that. I empathize with others greatly, but I think that‘s why I’m a Conservative Libertarian and not a Liberal Progressive. I believe in freedom and in the generosity of average people. I don’t trust government, union, nor corporate greed-heads. Big government and the Liberal agenda can only destroy America as that “beacon of light” we were meant to be.

      Report Post » Shiroi Raion  
    • Taquoshi
      Posted on May 2, 2012 at 12:38am

      Hey, Shiroi Raion, thanks for your comments. Good to hear your perspective. I also noticed when I was in college that the text books for Social Science were heavily slanted. And that carries through to today. When I recently expressed concern about a local food pantry running low on food, I was immediately confronted with the old axiom that if I wasn’t contributing food to the pantry, I had no right to comment on it because I was “part of the problem”. I was also informed that I “didn’t care” enough to give (wrong) and was, through some convoluted reasoning, causing the food shortage myself. I thought it was interesting that when I asked the speaker what he had done recently for the food pantry, he got even angrier and told me it was none of my business.

      Curious, no?

      Report Post » Taquoshi  
    • jwrennie
      Posted on May 2, 2012 at 1:20am

      Hi Simmone,

      You’ve misunderstood the study, as I think many other people will. It wasn’t seeking to understand who gives the most, the empirical data is in, the more secular the more stingy generally speaking.

      What the study was exploring was what motivated giving. Interestingly I think it doesn’t generate anything at all surprising. The results could pretty much be titled, “Shock finding, Human Beings fallen just as the Christians always said they were”. Or even, “Shock Finding, Atheists gullible and more easily subject to emotional manipulation than the religious”.

      Go back and read it again and look at the results keeping those things in mind. What this result shows, combined with the empirical giving data is that “mere compassion” as the only grounds for giving of money to help others is a very thin basis for expecting anybody to be charitable.

      I would never answer “compassion” as a top reason for giving money to help others, I have duty and obligation ahead of those regardless of how I feel. But an atheist has neither of those, they have only “compassion” to fall back on, and as you noted, it doesn’t make for a generous person.

      Just some thoughts. Your initial thinking is correct, but you are mistaken about the point of this study,

      Jason

      Report Post »  
    • TomSawyer
      Posted on May 2, 2012 at 4:20am

      I agree.

      Report Post »  
    • The Mouse
      Posted on May 2, 2012 at 7:26am

      Simmone, you seem to have neglected to mention that conservatives can be atheist. As an atheist, I have always felt more inclined to help others, versus some of my other deeply religious folks who espouse a more “tough love” and “pull yourself up” mentality. That is the reason I became an atheist. I find most Christians hypocritical. I find myself to be more of a Christian, than most of the Christians I ever knew and I don’t even believe in a personal God. Second, the only difference between an atheist giving to the poor and a Christian? The Christian expects you to convert to their faith; the atheist not so much. We just give without conditions. Christians gives under one condition: “Would you like to hear about our Jesus, while you chomp on that hearty meal we Christians just gave you”?

      Report Post »  
    • Ayla_me
      Posted on May 2, 2012 at 8:18am

      In this study it states that, on the basis of “the strength of their emotional commitment to another,” the athiets were more giving. Those who trust in God do not need “emotions” to guide their giving and doing for others. They have a higher calling: “Do unto others as I have done unto you,” said Jesus the Messiah. Read what they are NOT saying, and look at the source. If they had done an actual breakdown of those who believe in God, and their giving towards the poor and needy, and those who don’t believe, and the amount they actually give, I believe that they will find the Lord’s people to be more generous.

      Report Post »  
    • gramma b
      Posted on May 2, 2012 at 8:30am

      I’ve had a theory about this for a while. I believe that altruistic feelings are God-given. Part of what we Mormons call the “Light of Christ” which we believe is in all people, and which responds to spiritual truth and causes us to seek out God. Atheists like the emotional rewards that come from altruistic actions. It gives them part of the reward that can come from deep religious conviction, without having to acknowledge God. It’s kind of a “religion lite,” if you will.

      Report Post »  
    • SoNick
      Posted on May 2, 2012 at 9:51am

      @Ayla_me
      What you are implying in your post is that a Christian helping his fellow man is somehow superior to an atheist doing the same thing. You refer to Christians as having “a higher calling”. You say they don’t “need” an emotional stimulus to do good. Then you go on doubting the study, adding “I believe that they will find the Lord’s people to be more generous”.
      I see a few problems with your statements. First of all, how does divorcing yourself from human emotion make you morally better? How can you show empathy without human emotion? Secondly, how could it be considered more moral to act according to the guidelines established by an all powerful being capable of striking you down at any point? Wouldn’t acting on your own, without consideration of an eventual reward in the afterlife, be morally superior? And lastly, “wanting to believe” that christians are better does not make them so.
      BTW, I’m not saying that Christians are morally weak. Most of them are good and generous people who genuinely abhor injustice. And they are at their most human than when they espouse these most honorable qualities : selflessness, empathy and generosity. You don’t need faith in God for that. You need faith in Humanity.

      Report Post »  
  • jmcclena
    Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:45pm

    Atheists are good because it is good to be good, it feels good to be good, it is good to help others. Religious people are good because they are under the threat of eternal damnation. Which one is more moral?

    Report Post »  
    • Alessandre
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:53pm

      Religious people give because we are called to love as Christ has loved us & charity is the way we love. It’s not emotional & it may not feel at all good. Compassion is not a feeling it is an action. Feelings change, love doe not.

      Report Post »  
    • jmcclena
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 7:03pm

      Right, you are “called to love.” I, as an atheist, give because I do love, without conditions, and without omnipresent threat from a higher power.

      Report Post »  
    • Alessandre
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 7:08pm

      No threat, rather an invitation to be like God. You do not have any idea what you are talking about. It’s the difference between the one you love best calling your name & emptiness. If you don’t love Christ, if you don’t know His love, you just can’t understand what motivates Christians.

      Report Post »  
    • nzkiwi
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 7:12pm

      I think that the whole atheists vs Christians arguement is silly.

      People are people and all normal people have compassion for their fellow man. To suggest one group is better than another is a false premise and creates pointless bickering.

      I make an exception for the american atheist groups who are mean-spirited, small-minded idiots.

      Report Post »  
    • hidden_lion
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 7:13pm

      Atheists don’t give unless manipulated by emotional appeals. Since they are only 2/3rds human (missing the spiritual component) they try to fill the void with emotional outbursts. They will give their money to the best actor and not necessarily the most needy or effective charity.

      Report Post » hidden_lion  
    • nzkiwi
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 7:14pm

      I am an atheist for those that don’t know…

      Report Post »  
    • stifroc
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 7:18pm

      Being a good person is a personal choice. Doesn’t matter if you believe in God or not. I know a very nice atheist. I also know a few atheists that are complete @holes. I also know some Christians that are wonderful people, and I know some Christians who are complete @holes.

      Faith? No Faith? Doesn’t matter. It’s a personal choice about how you choose to conduct yourself, and who you choose to be.

      Case closed.

      Report Post » stifroc  
    • RossPoldark
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 7:25pm

      All lib turds are atheist, or try to be concoct a Christianity that caters to their degenerate life styles. The least charitable people are libturds/ athiests. One need only look to Hollywood to see that. Oh, let’s not forget excellent examples of uncharitable athiests, or Christian wannabes. Biden, Palosi, and Oduma. It amazes me how these idiots instruct Americans to share the wealth, and yet, they set very poor examples.

      Report Post »  
    • Just_Us
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 7:32pm

      “Atheists are good because it is good to be good, it feels good to be good, it is good to help others.”

      First of all, your entire premise is false. Atheists are self defining in what is categorized as, “good” and what is outside of that realm of your definition of “good”. Your definition is relative to the person defining it which makes it impossible to measure good deeds done by an atheist.

      You also fail in the definition of helping others. Give a man a fish, you have helped him today, teach him how to fish you have helped him for the rest of his life. An atheist defining a fish a day as, “good”, I would categorized as enabling and a poor choice if your aim is to actually help another person….but if it FEELS good, it must be good…right?

      Report Post »  
    • disenlightened
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 7:41pm

      For those of you curious to read more about these immature, miserable, self-loathing people, I highly recommend “Atheist Personality Disorder: Addressing A Distorted Mindset” by John J. Pasquini. It’s available in paperback on Amazon.com.

      Report Post » disenlightened  
    • jmcclena
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 8:03pm

      Ahh, theres that compassionate Christianity I’ve heard so much about.

      Report Post »  
    • disenlightened
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 8:20pm

      @JMCCLENA
      …you come in here attacking good people’s religiosity and politics, and you expect charitable goodwill and hugs?…you’re like every liberal out there – looking for a handout…wanting something for nothing.

      Report Post » disenlightened  
    • c0mm0nsense
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 8:37pm

      nzkiwi
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 7:12pm
      I think that the whole atheists vs Christians arguement is silly.

      People are people and all normal people have compassion for their fellow man. To suggest one group is better than another is a false premise and creates pointless bickering.

      In every article there is someone who looks beyond the rhetoric and sees the truth. This is just other story pitting Americans against Americans with pointless crap. Next Article please.

      Report Post » c0mm0nsense  
    • From Virginia
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 9:11pm

      Acts don’t get you into heaven. Accepting Christ as your lord and savior does. It’s a gift from God and not of works, lest any man should boast. So the threat of damnation isn’t a valid snark.

      We give to charity and perform acts of charity because Christ cared for the poor. It’s an act of our love for Christ.

      Report Post »  
    • kaydeebeau
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 9:20pm

      How does one define good or moral without the steadfast standard of God? Good or moral as compared to what? Adolf Hitler or Mother Teresa? So compared to Adolf Hitler I am good but compared to Mother Teresa I am not? This is fair and just how?

      Here is fair and just… compared to God, none of us are good. We are all doomed to separation from the Holy Eternal One because we cannot be good enough (when the standard is the Perfect Eternal One) But because He loves us so much (we are His greatest creation) and wants to have a relationship with us, He makes a way for us to be right with Him. So He sent His Son to be the subsititute for our failures (sin). Since the penalty for sin is death, His Son, took our punishment so that we do not have to die for our crimes against God (and be eternally separated from Him)

      He died freely for us. All we have to do is accept the gift, admit we fall short of His glory (standard) and receive the promise He gives.

      We still won’t be good, but we are redeemed

      Report Post » kaydeebeau  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 10:57pm

      @Disenlighented

      No shock you are proud of it and wear it as a badge of honor.

      Amazing how many Christian‘s either don’t read, or don’t follow the Bible(the book they cherish so much.)

      Read Matthew 5:38-48 and then come back here and re-read your remarks and see if you are doing anything remotely close to what that passage says.

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 11:24pm

      Hey Mod,

      Long time……..no not talk.

      See you’re still up to the same tactics…..that was #4 if I’m not mistaken.

      See ya.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on May 2, 2012 at 12:19am

      You mean inviting someone to reach scripture to gain guidance on life?

      Yup, how deceitful of me.

      You‘re so partisan it’s hilarious.

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on May 2, 2012 at 12:46am

      MOD,

      Is that what that was?……..an invitation? You need to work on that.

      Partisan?…….how so?

      Were talking religion and charitable giving here, not politics.

      But since you brought up politics, who you votin for?

      You gonna write in for Paul, or sit this one out like you said you probably would. Even though you claim to be somewhat conservative.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • ckokkola
      Posted on May 2, 2012 at 6:50am

      Sorry to put a damper one your theory that religious people give due to the threat of damnation but that isn’t biblical:

      2Corinthians 9:7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.

      Ex 25:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring me an offering: of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart ye shall take my offering.

      God requires us to give as we will not because we have to but because we want to. He has no need for our money He can get the money from somewhere else. What matters is that we give from the heart.

      Report Post »  
    • disenlightened
      Posted on May 2, 2012 at 7:46am

      @MODERATIONISBEST
      …instead, why don’t you reread that first sentence of yours and rewrite it because you make no sense…proud of what?

      Report Post » disenlightened  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on May 2, 2012 at 10:33am

      @Disenlighented

      Look at your name, and then apply my first sentence to it. Then it will make sense.

      Partisan goes beyond politics
      “an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.”

      My point is, you have a certain viewpoint of me, and no matter what I do(even referencing scripture), you will find a problem with it and feel the need to comment. Then again, I know it must be hard for Christians to accept that they don’t really read or follow the Bible, so it’s human nature to get angry.

      Why do you think all those students got up and left when Dan Savage started ripping into the Bible?(btw, I commend the students for getting up and peacefully walking out instead of booing him off stage). They got up and left not because he was telling lies, but because he was telling truths of how the Bible has been used throughout history. The truth hurts more than lies.

      As far as politics goes. I voted for Romney in my state primary and will probably vote for him again. I can’t say with 100% certainty that I won’t be feeling lazy that day and will forgo voting, but if I do vote, I will vote for Romney.

      That being said, I don’t think either Obama or Romney are right for our country but what can ya do?

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on May 2, 2012 at 1:51pm

      Hey MOD,

      Here’s to hoping you are not lazy that day.

      That “certain viewpoint” I/we have of you is nothing more than the image of yourself that you have presented to us. Very clearly.

      You are an instigator MOD. If you want to be treated with respect, you should not go around pi$$ing in peoples Corn Flakes.

      And you need to work on the way in which you “reference” Scripture.

      Just sayin’

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on May 2, 2012 at 11:00pm

      @Billy

      I have defended Christians numerous times.

      I have defended other people of faith on here numerous times.

      I have said many positive things about Christianity on here numerous times.

      I have referenced scripture on here many times(in fact, referencing to parts that I think are positive).

      The fact is, when I do, you come back at me with some remark in a negative light.

      Again, it doesn’t bother me. As I said, I just find it hilarious that you are so partisan that you feel the need to argue with me….when I agree with you.

      It reminds me when Presidents do something that the other side of the aisle actually agrees with and, those people so, “oh well, he only did it because he had to!” Hilariously idiotic and narrow minded.

      It just adds to how separated we as a people are. It doesn’t matter that I agree with you personally on a lot of aspects(fiscal and personal responsibility, being personally against abortion, being pro free markets and other MANY things), the fact that I”m not a Christian and have had said negative things about Christianity automatically makes me your enemy in your eyes. To you, I’m likely a blood thirsty, baby eating, liberal, marxist, communist, pro terrorist radical when in reality, i’m not anywhere close to any of those things.

      It’s okay, continue to view me in the light you currently do.

      Report Post »  
  • ravendoe
    Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:39pm

    Christians tend to not brag about their giving, as it is spiritual and something very personal between them and God.

    Report Post » ravendoe  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 10:59pm

      Did you just brag about not bragging? Lol

      Anybody who boasts about how much they give is missing the point entirely.

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 11:28pm

      Hey Mod,

      Where exactly do you see any boasting in that post?

      You instigating again Mod.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Texas Chris
      Posted on May 3, 2012 at 8:25am

      I got an award for humility in high school. They took it away when I wore it…

      Report Post »  
  • Razlord
    Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:36pm

    people donate to things they care about … this is more bs division.

    Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 11:00pm

      I agree.

      I personally don’t care why someone gives. Some people do. Shame on them.

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on May 2, 2012 at 1:29am

      Hey Mod,

      Read the post you just replied to here.

      Now read your reply.

      Can you spot the irony?

      LOLOL

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
  • TH30PH1LUS
    Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:33pm

    Robb Willer,

    you need to read http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compasionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008216

    kthanxbye

    Report Post » TH30PH1LUS  
  • another pucker
    Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:33pm

    Didn’t George Clooney already set this straight on the David Letterman show when he told Letterman that Conservatives were more charitable! This just makes me wonder why Clooney keeps supporting the liberal agenda. I guess it just goes to show you that money does not bring logic or common sense!

    XOXOXO

    Report Post »  
  • hi
    Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:32pm

    Blaze, today is MAY 1st, not APRIL 1st.

    Report Post » hi  
  • geonj
    Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:32pm

    i would have to believe that the data is flawed.

    Report Post » geonj  
    • Tax Revolt
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:51pm

      I would say the questions were flawed. You can word questions to elicit certain responses that provide specific data that you are looking for. You also have to take into account where the study is taking place. It is in California. Based on my perceptions of CA, and not just from the media I grew up there, I would suspect that the questions as well as the data to be skewed towards Atheism.

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 7:44pm

      Awfully small sample sizes to boot.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 8:17pm

      Besides, I’m waiting to see what the follow-up story says.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
  • MIldman
    Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:31pm

    Most studies I’ve heard of conclude that religious people tend to be more generous. The way this article is worded makes it difficult to determine what the conclusion of this study actually was. From what I can tell, it is that the generosity of the nonreligious is motivated more by emotion, whereas religious generosity is motivated by other factors (in addition to emotion). So a nonreligious person will be generous if he feels a strong emotional inclination to do so, while a religious person may be generous for other reasons. Either way, the study doesn’t say the nonreligious are tend to be more generous, despite the title of the article.

    Report Post »  
    • circleDwagons
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 7:00pm

      Study is flawed. Besides they seem generous with other peopls money

      Report Post » circleDwagons  
    • Tired of Code Names
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 8:56pm

      circleDwagons
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 7:00pm
      Study is flawed. Besides they seem generous with other peopls money
      It amazes me that the liberals and athiest folks talk about “giving” from time to time when they have a bit of “pocket change” but, most Christians I know give every week to their church as much as they believe they can within their budgetary constraints AND on top of that bring in food for the churches charitable food pantry and make donations to all kinds of other charities as their friends and work friends request. I also really like your Martin Luther Seal picture. Sums it all up. Wish more knew what it stands for.

      Report Post »  
  • MrWolf
    Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:30pm

    Very thin indeed. Looking at this you should probably consider what is actually happening. Your dealing with people who make decisions. What does that mean. It means this. You have person A and Person B. You show them a video and they see such hardship as you wouldn’t believe. Then you sit back and watch as they choose to given their money, where, and how much. You note person A gives all his money to the cause that tugged at their heart strings.

    Person B however only gives half. But why? is he less feeling? According to this he is. I submit another alternative that was clearly over looked by these so called “Researchers”. Maybe. . .just maybe, person B gave them what he could, so that should another need it, he could give more to them. Maybe his heart may not be ruled by simple impulse. He dosn’t drop it all into one Jar, and then when the next person asks, he has to point to the guy with the jar and say “Hash it out with him. I gave it all to him”.

    Of course there are other reasons I don’t just blindly give. I want people to learn to stand on their own. I want to help them stand, and then stand aside and watch them walk, not become the crutch they depend on for everything.

    Report Post »  
  • paperpushermj
    Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:29pm

    “Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not,” Willer said. “The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or repetitional concerns.”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Point of clarification:
    When you Say “Strength of their Emotional Connection” does that mean Atheist need to know the recipient of their good will first, before giving?
    Also the Author seems to be making a judgement call that Good Deeds based on Compassion is superior to Good deeds coming from Religious Doctrine.
    The Author fails to give information as to which motivation Compassion or Religious doctrine produces the highest number of acts of kindness. Wonder Why?

    Report Post » paperpushermj  
    • Alessandre
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:56pm

      The author doesn’t even define the word “compassion” but assumes it’s a feeling.

      Report Post »  
    • paperpushermj
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 11:11pm

      That’s a good guess seeing how feelings is what Defines the left.

      Report Post » paperpushermj  
  • Bookster
    Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:28pm

    Oh please. These “studies” are idiotic at best. Giving away fake money after seeing a video of a starving child? Playing games after reporting how compassionate you are? Who reports their ‘good deeds’ more? What non-thinking fool came up with those guidelines. Any Christian who is truly trying to follow God‘s word doesn’t report their good deeds, they do it in private where only the person helped, the person who did the deed and God know.

    Must have been a government funded study by a bunch of professor pinhead atheists.

    Liberalism is a mental disorder.

    Report Post »  
    • THE BECKMEISTER
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:45pm

      Couldn’t agree with you more. The Lord warned us about these hypocrites who “give alms in public for all to see. But when you give alms, give with your right hand, that your left cannot see what you are doing. Then your Father in Heaven who sees all will reward you.”(paraphrasing a bit here, from Matthew, I believe.) The reason you don’t hear so much about religious altruism, especially Christian, is because we’ve been taught not to run around broadcasting it, unlike the Liberal pinheads.

      Report Post »  
    • HorseCrazy
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 8:51pm

      for this to be called science disgusts me. really this is what passes for a scientific study these days? pathetic fake money gut reactions etc. sorry to burst the mad scientists bubble but I donate a lot of money and time and it isn’t every idiot thing that gives me an emotional reaction showing poor hungry children and giving them fake dollars. it is doing my research picking the charity that best utilizes my money etc. this garbage once again to target religious folks.

      Report Post »  
  • sickoftalking
    Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:26pm

    That’s not a bad thing. Christian philosophy was in part shaped by stoicism, which would argue that one shouldn’t be primarily guided by emotion. “Compassion” also doesn’t only refer to an emotion, but also an attitude, to act compassionate towards others doesn’t necessarily mean you feel compassion. Of course Christians aren’t expected to be bloodless, but that’s another issue.

    And why aren’t you using the results to challenge atheists, who often consider themselves more rational than religious people, and claim religious people are guided by all sorts of fears of punishment and by mental weakness?

    Report Post » sickoftalking  
  • Paul
    Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:25pm

    Doing something from the mind is one thing doing it from the heart is another…

    Report Post » Paul  
  • Walkabout
    Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:25pm

    I don’t base my altruism on “repetitional concerns”, whatever that means. Study sounds bogus.

    Report Post »  
    • Anse
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:28pm

      So you‘re claiming you don’t base your altruism on something but you have no idea what that thing is.

      Report Post »  
  • cantstandlibs
    Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:24pm

    Blaze, come on! What good are “games” using “fake money?” The research is not very conclusive, in my view. How about a real study of people donating to a useful charity? Think atheists really give more? I doubt it.

    Why don’t we study kids playing their parents at Monopoly to see who is more responsible with money? Sheez…

    Report Post »  
  • Bunk
    Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:24pm

    I don’t buy it either. Sounds just like the left spreading half truths about Thomas Jefferson in hopes that it will stick. I’m sorry but reality exists and I see it all around me.

    Report Post »  
  • Anse
    Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:23pm

    Absolutely disgusting…. this is a Christian nation…. atheists….. our Founding Fathers……. Obama…… birth certificate….. war on Christianity……. disgusting……. not my president……. shameful….. the Democrats….. this country is going to hell….. religion…..

    Report Post »  
  • another pucker
    Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:19pm

    This study is so ridiculous! I would have to say that when you do a study using fake money or someone else’s money the study is false! If you want a real study why don’t they do one where the people are actually giving with their own earned money! or time! And don‘t we all know that you’ve got to take care of yourself so you can take care of others!

    XOXOXO

    Report Post »  
    • toto
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:31pm

      Absolutely don’t trust the veracity of this study. “Studies” have a tendency to come to preordained conclusions and are buried if they don’t.

      Report Post »  
    • paperpushermj
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:36pm

      Great Points

      Report Post » paperpushermj  
  • Rip Curly
    Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:19pm

    Athiests know that prayer doesn’t work, so they feel more obligated to be “the hand of god” and actually do something.

    Prayer is what people do when they don’t care enough to lend a hand. It makes them feel better.

    Report Post »  
    • swift_driver
      Posted on May 2, 2012 at 1:19pm

      Show us any charity run by atheists that truly helps their fellow man. Just one. Nope, because there aren’t any.

      Report Post » swift_driver  
  • Baddoggy
    Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:17pm

    Really? The Atheist will tout thier help of others, bringing praise to themselves…. The Christian will keep it silent as ths WORD of God says to do…Bringing Glory to God…Not themselves.

    Report Post » Baddoggy  
    • godhatesacoward
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:33pm

      My thoughts exactly.

      Report Post » godhatesacoward  
    • Razlord
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:41pm

      bad…this is just more division…divide on every lvl.

      Report Post »  
    • MammalOne
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:54pm

      …that has nothing to do with this study. It’s not about who brags about giving more, it’s about what motivates different people to give. If you have empirical data to support your claims, then by all means, place cite it.

      Report Post » MammalOne  
    • Baddoggy
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 7:05pm

      You guys pick up a Bible? Some of us do follow it…Idiots.

      Report Post » Baddoggy  
  • Mispentyouth
    Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:17pm

    What I would like to see is a more accurate projections, by finding out who gives more to charity.

    Report Post »  
  • chicago76
    Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:16pm

    So an atheist does a study that says atheists are better people that non-atheists. What a surprise? Atheists are the greatest people on earth. Ask any atheist and he will tell you.

    Report Post »  
    • fancypapertowel
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 8:57pm

      Would you say the same thing the results were what you expected? conducted by a religious or non-reigious group?

      Report Post »  
  • chicago76
    Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:13pm

    Atheists are the greatest people on earth. Ask any atheist and he or she will tell you.

    Report Post »  
  • mtcountrygrl
    Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:11pm

    Don’t buy it!

    Report Post »  
    • sooner12
      Posted on May 1, 2012 at 6:21pm

      Don’t buy it, either. Now we’re supposed to become athiest and give to charities? Study is a bunch of crap.

      Report Post »  
1 2 3 ... 5

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love